Ducking on chucking

The Australian and Pakistani have an action that looks suspiciously like chucking; they look more like javelin throwers than modern-day fast bowlers.

Why, then, have they not been called? Why isn’t their action — and that of others — being dissected in public, on television, after the umpire rules it to be a no-ball? That, after all, is the fate that befell others in the past, from Grant Flower to Muttiah Muralitharan.

Not many would be aware of the answer: it lies in the ICC’s decision to reduce the prospect of a player’s public trial (and execution). A change in the rules covering the treatment of suspect actions essentially asks umpires to treat the matter confidentially, so virtually ensuring that no one gets to know anything of the controversial action.

It’s been seen as a cop-out by the ICC; they neither officially condone chucking nor condemn it; they urge umpires to treat it confidentially, yet have not revoked their basic right to call.

Part of the confusion lies in the fact that the original Law (Law 24, governing no-balls) is part of the MCC’s code, as are all the basic rules of cricket. And the procedure of treating reported actions — over two stages — forms part of the ICC’s code.

Law 24, Notes Two and Three, are specific enough for even the most biased official to understand. Note Two of the law explains: ‘‘The ball must not be thrown’’, which is clear enough.

Note Three digs a little deeper into the argument and defines the wording of ‘fair delivery’: ‘A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened from that point until the ball has left the hand’.

Before the amendment of the Law in 2000, as part of the MCC’s Laws for the New Millennium, the umpires had the right to ‘call’ a bowler for an unfair bowling action and a no-ball was the result. But after the amendment, it’s been decided that the matter will be discussed in private, and solved by the ICC, the concerned cricket board and experts, who will work with the bowler to correct his action.

However, the umpire retains the right to ‘call’ the bowler and no-ball him if he feels that the bowler is infringing the Laws of the game.

For those who know the Law well enough and the reasoning behind what constitutes a throw, it is a slight variation of a proposal written in 1967 by Ian Peebles in a book titled Straight from the Shoulder. A former England leg-spinner, journalist and author, Peebles examined in depth how to rid the game of chuckers.

Apart from being an honest attempt to simplify the throwing law and make it easier for the umpire, the Peebles’ theory, when published, was smiled at and then side-stepped by the muddle-thinking lawmakers for a further 33 years. Amazing. When the MCC agreed in 1999 to the 2000 code being drawn up with the aid of the ICC, the Peebles theorem was brushed off and redrafted with almost the same principle.

There are two graphic illustrations in the book that display the action of a javelin thrower. When the actions of Lee and Akhtar are examined, similarities are pretty obvious.

The Port Elizabeth conversation discussed legal actions; England’s James Kirtley, South Africa’s Andre Nel and a couple who play in the domestic competitions do not entirely meet with the wording of notes two and three of Law 24.

And, while we are about it, let us toss in Sri Lanka’s Ruchira Perera. He was reported last year after the Lord’s Test against England when his action failed to meet the legality required under Law 24 and underwent remedial action. While he has reappeared since, he was not considered for the World Cup.

But the ICC have, in their wisdom, placed a moratorium on umpires doing the honest thing and calling a bowler, as they are allowed to do under the Laws. It could be, as former South African provincial opening batsman Simon Bezuidenhout suggests, a matter of passing the buck. Or even a case of officialdom getting in the way of an umpire carrying out his duty, which is another theory.

Bezuidenhout — a contemporary and teammate of Graeme and Peter Pollock’s — feels strongly that the ICC have not helped the bowlers by declining to strictly enforce Law 24 when it comes to policing a player’s action. As he sees it, the ICC and the lawmakers should either scrap the Law altogether, which could create a serious problem, or strictly enforce the Law if a bowler transgresses.

In the case of Perera at Lord’s last May, the umpires were Russell Tiffin (Zimbabwe) and Srinivas Venkataraghavan (India). So there was no question of bias, although the Sri Lanka management, to protect the bowler, did not enjoy the British press comments.

The umpires requested video material of the bowler’s action and after viewing this asked that he be placed in the Stage One report. This allowed him to play but undergo remedial treatment at the same time with a report back within six weeks.

It is a simple enough process and Lee and Akhtar have been through the same, yet there is still a problem and for some reason there is reluctance to re-examine their actions.

There is a similar problem in the domestic game in South Africa where Brian Basson, director of cricket playing affairs and director of World Cup cricket operations, supports the theory of not ‘calling’ any player they feel transgresses the Law. To his way of thinking it smudges the grey areas of the game through what is considered a ‘public execution’ of a player’s career.

His argument is quaint enough, as he feels that it is unfair to do the honest thing and call a player if his action does not meet the requirements of Law 24.

In fact the last time a player was called in a Test was Zimbabwe’s Grant Flower in Bulawayo in the first Test of the 2000-01 series and before the new code became Law. The umpire was Australia’s Darrel Hair and anyone who has followed the game closely enough can recall chapter and verse of that episode, as well as the calling of Muttiah Muralitharan in Adelaide in the 1998-99 triangular series.

The row and legal wrangle which led to Peter van der Merwe quitting as a match referee left an unsavoury odour. Then again, South Africa’s past role in monitoring the chucker is another avenue worth exploring. Ian Meckiff (during the 1957-58 tour), Geoff Griffin (1960) and Gary Bartlett (New Zealand in South Africa in 1961-62); the trio escaped largely unscathed when their actions were examined as ‘polite questions asked’. Umpires were told to look the ‘other way’ if they valued their careers.

It was only in 1960, in a rare display of unity when the MCC establishment and England umpires were told to take tough action, that Griffin became one of several bowlers called under the wording of the Law as it was then framed.

Umpiring and the laws of the game were straightforward in those days. These days there are playing conditions and regulations and a profusion of javelin throwers.