If Afridi does not chuck, who does?

The major problems confronting the ICC are crowd control menace as also the ugly blot of betting and bribery. On both the counts, ICC has not been firm and upright. And now, even before the firstball is bowled in this latest version of the World Cup, comes the bombshell — Shoaib Akhtar has been “reported” for chucking. Reported to whom? The ICC, of course! This in simple terms means that the ICC will have its hands full with a lot of muck. I am afraid, a great deal of attention from the game will be diverted. Not for the better, if I may add. Four teams — India, Pakistan, Australia and the West Indies — may even have their performances affected it the ICC proceedings take place during the course of the World Cup.

Shoaib Akhtar was a rage only a few weeks ago. Suddenly, the Pakistan camp will be rattled. The young athletic pacer from Rawalpindi was beginning to create fear amongst the elite of batsmen globally when somebody though it worthwhile to check the Pakistani in his strides.

Personally speaking, I have mixed views on the subject. For a start, there is too much of a vague discussion on the subject of “throwing”. Without being unkind to anyone in particular, I feel the law concerning“chucking and throwing” is an ass.

What’s in black and white is not always interpreted uniformly. Besides, now the umpire is not even entitled to use his authority of “calling” any bowler with a suspect action. Two Australian umpires, Darrel Hair and Emerson, had to pay heavily for their courage of conviction. The Sri Lankan Muthiah Muralitharan was “called” which led to a lot of compromising deliberations. Eventually, it was diagnosed that Murali was born with a defect which does not quite allow him to confirm to the nitty-gritty basics of a clean action. The argument, in my opinion, is laughable.There are millions of kids born with some deformity or the other. It is just too bad and also sad. Ian Meckiff, wrote “thrown out” after his birth effect was not considered sound squabble. His captain Richie Benaud said after the unpleasant incident: “I bowled Meckiff for hundreds of overs before umpires, who approved his delivery. Now that one umpire (Colin Eager) does not accept Meckiff’s action, Iaccept that too.” Meckiff was man enough to accept Richie Benaud’s verdict: “I know Richie did the right thing because he is behind every player.”

Australia then were quite notorious for “chucking” business. But one man alone — Sir Donald Bradman — had sufficient guts to root out the evil in a single shot.

There were others like Jim Burge, Gordon Rorke and a few more who got the message and voluntarily made way for cleaner cricket.

In the present context, can we expect one gentleman within the ICC who can do a Bradman? Murali was cleared but Rajesh Chauhan and Harbhajan Singh had to face the ignominy of “rectification”of their bowling actions. As it really transpired, I had the chance to see all “suspect” actions in Kapil Dev’s office. I am convinced the law is an ass!

Shoaib Akhtar may rightly think his cricketing world is crumbling, thanks to the umpire-referee nexus. But, what about Shahid Afridi’s faster delivery? If that is legitimate, nothing in cricket world was ever illegal. I don’twish to hurt these youngsters, my only question is why remedial measures were not taken in their formative years? Chauhan was asked to bowl without his shirt, which I thought was sufficient humiliation. I would like to see Shoaib Akhtar and our own Nikhil Chopra be filmed with half sleeves shirt, bowling normally.

Without sounding too over-bearing, allow me to add that you don’t need to be an ICC panel umpire or a referee to define a “chuck”. Even a lay man can point out who is throwing a javelin or who is bowling with a cricket ball.