ICC Continues to Drop The Ball With Regards to Chucking.....

Why does the ICC continue to entertain notions of stupid coaches like Greg Chappel who accuse Sohaib who has been already cleared by the ICC, that he chucks ? All it has done is sully the good name of bowlers with perfectly fine actions and brought to light how ill-conceived and arbitrary the assignment of permissible degrees of bend in the arm of bowlers has been.

Under existing ICC rules, "a spin bowler was allowed to bend his arm by five degrees, a medium-fast bowler by a perplexing seven-and a half degrees and a fast bowler by ten degrees". How these figures were enshrined in law remains a mystery and when the ICC’s sub-committee applied these standards they discovered that just about everyone on the international cricket circuit had the propensity to hurl illegal deliveries at batsmen. The result of this discovery has been to allow all bowlers, regardless of their type of bowling, to bend their arms by fifteen degrees.

Some find this to be a suspicious number, given that Muttiah Muralitharan’s banned doosra (Saqlain Mushtaq with his classic-no chuck- off-spin bowling action, does not get enough credit for giving cricket’s lexicon the doosra) reportedly is delivered with a fourteen degree bend in the arm. The Sri Lankan cricket board has been lobbying hard for the ban to be removed and clearly it is not in cricket’s best interest to have the eventual world record holder for the most wickets in Test cricket to be tainted with the allegation that he was a chucker. But that opens another, albeit related, can of worms, best left to another article.

Lost in the shuffle of articles, statements, outrage, vindication and conjecture is the fact that fifteen degrees appears to be on the surface, a less arbitrary figure than the existing assortment. According to the biomechanics experts employed by the ICC, a bend of less than fifteen degrees would be imperceptible to the naked eye, meaning that if an umpire noticed a throw, that would mean the fifteen degree angle had been exceeded. So, in the end, after all this hoopla, all it really comes down to is that an umpire will call a no-ball if he feels upon delivery of the ball, that the bowler has chucked. And that is how it has to be, and the gods of cricket help us - isn’t that how it has always been? Unless umpires will have their retinas fitted with high-speed cameras and protractors, they can never be sure by how many degrees a bowler bent his arm.

This entire exercise reeks of the further bureaucratization of cricket by the ICC. There will now be a body set up by the ICC, which will handle the rehabilitation of bowlers with suspect bowling actions. A body that I would argue, seems superfluous.

It must be kept in mind that there are very few bowlers in the world who are considered out and out chuckers. More common is the notion that a particular delivery from a bowler, such as a bouncer from Brett Lee or Shahid Afridi’s faster leg-spinner, is suspect. In that case that particular delivery should be called a no-ball by the umpire and the bowler will know not to try it again until he fixes the delivery. If he keeps bowling that particular delivery he can be called again by the umpire or ordered out of the attack. The principle is the same for another outlawed delivery, namely the beamer to the head of a batsman.

Ultimately it is up to the governing body of each country to ensure that they pick players who know how to play the game. Let the individual boards deal with every manner of inconvenience involved in rehabilitating their own players. Further bureaucratization of the chucking issue can only complicate what should have been something that was easily identified and remedied.

By:- zushy_786

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I apologize for the long rant, but recent mud-slinging actions and continued allegations against supposedly cleared bowlers that have been cleared, has clouded the supposed gentelman's game.....Either the player chucks or he doesn't....Anybody agree with me or how can they clear up this bureaucrazation of cricket.....

Bump for others who missed it.....

I do understand that once a bowler gets the all-clear from ICC, he can be referred to again, because the bowler can bowl with a different action.

But why would Akhtar bowl with a different action when he has already demonstrated twice the legitimacy of his ultra-fast good-length deliveries, yorkers AND bouncers (the so-called "effort ball") in the Biomechanical Test? If he were to stop his arm in the final delivery swing and try to hurl the ball rather by straightening the elbow, he will cause serious damage to his elbow tissues given the amount of pressure and momentum he is operating at.

OK, if against India his speed had shot up to 105 mph, the Indians MAY have a point, but the speeds were consistently the same as those he did in the Biomechanical Tests. Greg is just trying his best to create a smokescreen and try to save his skin from the aftermath of the ingnominous Indian failure in the Test Series. Most of all, it won't get him anywhere, and won't affect Shoaib's career - rest assured. The Indians can be jealous and envy for all we care, but that won't produce an ultra-fast bowler in their ranks - probably in the next 60 years too.

Spot on.....Why then does he and others keep getting questioned of the legitimacy of his bowling action, when he has been cleared by the ICC twice !...I still think the ICC should make the ruling clear - either you chuck or not.......No more of this 15 degree rule, and so called other bowling actions when bowling other balls......

I was of the view that if and only if the match official i.e umpires/match
refree. were the only one to officially determine if a bowler has a suspect
action.

NOT any and every DONKEY FOOL who is looking for an excuse/scapegoat
like chappel,holding and the entire Indian cricket fraterny.

Is The Icc Listening To Any Idiot Who Says Bowling Action Is Suspect?