Writing in his exclusive blog for PakPassion.net, the former Pakistan fielding coach Julien Fountain looks at the process of testing bowling actions and suggests what players and coaches can do to ensure that individuals are not sidelined.

By Julien Fountain (16th August, 2015)

Law 24.2 Strikes again . . .

Pakistan all-rounder Mohammad Hafeez has been banned from bowling in international cricket for 12 months after his action was found to be illegal for a second time since November 2014. He will be able to have his action reassessed by the ICC only after this period is completed.

So, the rule 24.2 strikes again and yet another spinner bites the proverbial dust. Who is to blame and what can we do to stop this travesty happening in the future?

The legality of bowling actions has always been a debatable topic at all levels of the game. Surely it is the responsibility of grassroots coaches to ensure that a young players bowling action is considered legal when a player starts to play the game at an early age.

But for the last few years, the plethora of high profile role models from around the globe has meant that this so called “Questionable action” has not been questioned, until now. Is that the fault of their grass roots coaches or the ICC for not policing law 24.2 strictly and effectively enough for the last twenty years?

Clearly, the tactical advantages that may be afforded by a player using an illegal action; have been overlooked by coaches, captains and players in a bid to gain a competitive edge at any cost. If role models at the international level are doing it, surely we cannot be surprised when all our youngsters start imitating it and start achieving similar results

Unfortunately, this means that long term a young bowler is treading a very fine line; especially if they go on to play cricket at a professional level where their actions can now be put under a TV microscope by all and sundry.

So if this is the new policy, surely it must be a two-pronged attack. On the one hand all the dubious actions must be dealt with at the professional end of the game. Now this is not going to be easy, and least of all for the players themselves. They have been using this action for many years, and have not been told to modify it until now. It is bound to be a very difficult undertaking for many.

The second step is to ensure that youth cricket coaches worldwide are helping the process, not hindering it by excusing or overlooking dubious actions merely to gain a competitive edge. This process of clean action education needs to be encouraged and supported by national governing bodies globally. Players should be encouraged and supported in that learning phase of their development; not ostracized or sidelined.

So how do we deal with this at the professional end of the game?

The following is taken from an ICC document called: “ICC Regulations for the review of bowlers reported with suspected illegal bowling actions”

You can view it here: http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/91/...tions/overview
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If in a Match as set out in paragraph 1.1.1(a) above, a Player is called by an Umpire under the provisions of Law 24.2 or is suspected by an Umpire or the Match Referee of bowling with an Illegal Bowling Action, the following procedure shall apply.

Note: Umpires and Match Referees, in deciding whether to cite a Player under these Regulations, should use the naked eye viewing the action live and/or on television at normal speed. Slow motion television replays should only be used to confirm initial suspicions.

. 2.1 Reporting Procedure

. 2.1.1 At the conclusion of the relevant Match, the Umpire(s) and/or Match Referee shall write a report (the Match Officials’ Report) detailing their concerns about the bowling action of the relevant Player including, where relevant, whether those concerns relate to the Player’s bowling action generally or whether they relate to one or more specific types of delivery.

. 2.1.2 If the Match Officials’ Report is written by the Umpires it shall be passed to the Match Referee.

. 2.1.3 Within 24 hours of the conclusion of the Match in which the Player is reported, the Match Referee shall furnish the Player’s team manager and the ICC with a copy of the Match Officials’ Report.

. 2.1.4 Once the Player’s team manager and the ICC have been furnished with a copy of the Match Officials’ Report and within 24 hours thereof, the Match Referee, through the Board of the Host Country, shall make a media statement to the effect that the Player has been reported as having a suspected Illegal Bowling Action and that he will be subject to the ICC review process as set out herein.

. 2.1.5 If the Match is a televised Match, upon receipt of the Match Officials’ Report from the Match Referee, the ICC shall arrange for three copies of the television footage of the bowling spells of the Player in the relevant Match to be produced as soon as possible. Once these tapes have been received, the ICC shall immediately write to the Player’s Home Board confirming that the Player has been reported for a suspected Illegal Bowling Action and enclosing the Match Officials’ Report and two copies of the tape referred to above. The Board shall retain one copy for its own purposes and the other shall be forwarded to the Player. The third copy shall be retained by the ICC for the independent analysis and any BRG hearing referred to in paragraphs

2.2 and 2.3 below. If no television footage is available, upon receipt of the Match Officials’ Report from the Match Referee, the ICC shall immediately write to the Player’s Home Board confirming that the Player had been reported for a suspected Illegal Bowling Action and enclosing the relevant

Match Officials’ Report.

. 2.2 ICC independent analysis

. 2.2.1 If a Player is reported in accordance with paragraph 2.1.1 above, he shall be required to submit to an independent analysis of his bowling action (Independent Analysis) carried out as follows:

. 2.2.2 The ICC shall appoint on an annual basis a panel of human movement specialists.

2.2.3 The members of this panel shall have the credentials, equipment and facilities to conduct analysis of the bowling actions of Players in accordance with the ICC Standard Analysis Protocols (Annexure 1 hereto).

. 2.2.4 The Independent Analysis shall be carried out by a member of the ICC panel of human movement specialists referred to in paragraph 2.2.2 above (the Appointed Specialist), appointed by the ICC in consultation with the Player’s Home Board. The Appointed Specialist shall not be domiciled in the country which the Player represents in International Cricket.

. 2.2.5 The Independent Analysis shall be carried out as soon as reasonably possible but, in any event, within 21 days of receipt by the Player’s Home Board of the notice referred to in paragraph 2.1.5 above. See paragraph 2.2.15 below for Players reported during ICC events.

. 2.2.6 The Independent Analysis shall be carried out in accordance with the ICC Standard Analysis Protocols and shall take into account the Match Officials’ Report. If the Player expresses any concern or complaint regarding the circumstances or conduct of the Independent Analysis, he should make these known to the Appointed Specialist before the conclusion of the Independent Analysis. The Appointed Specialist should make a written note of the relevant concern or complaint which should be agreed with the Player.

. 2.2.7 The ICC shall be responsible for determining the time and place at which the Independent Analysis shall be carried out and shall ensure that the Player, through the Player’s Home Board, is given reasonable notice thereof. All travel and accommodation arrangements shall be made by the ICC in consultation with the Player’s Home Board.

. 2.2.8 In the event of the Player failing to submit to the Independent Analysis as required above, such failure will be regarded as an admission that he bowls with an Illegal Bowling Action and he shall be immediately suspended from bowling in International Cricket until such time as he so submits and satisfactorily partici-pates in an Independent Analysis.

. 2.2.9 Within 14 days of the date for the carrying out of the Independent Analysis, the Appointed Specialist shall furnish the ICC with a written report (hereinafter referred to as the Independent Assessment) in the form as set out in the ICC Standard Analysis Protocols. Where the Independent Assessment concludes that the Player employed an Illegal Bowling Action during the Independent Analysis, it should indicate whether the Player employed an Illegal Bowling Action generally or in respect of specific type(s) of delivery only and whether, in the Appointed Specialists opinion, such conclusion is not inconsistent with the relevant video evidence. Where the Independent Assessment concludes that the Player did not employ an Illegal Bowling Action during the Independent Analysis, it should, where relevant, indicate whether, in the opinion of the Appointed Specialist, the Player’s bowling action during the Independent Analysis was materially different to his action in the Match in respect of which he was cited (whether generally or in respect of the specific type(s) of delivery (if any) identified in the Match Officials’ Report). The Independent Assessment should also include any notes of concerns or complaints of the Player made under paragraph 2.2.6 above. See paragraph 2.2.15 below for Players reported during ICC events.

. 2.2.10 Immediately upon receipt of the Independent Assessment by the ICC, the ICC shall furnish the Players Home Board with a copy thereof.

. 2.2.11 Subject to paragraph 2.2.12 below, in the event that the Independent Assessment concludes either that (i) the Player employed an Illegal Bowling Action during the Independent Analysis and that such conclusion is not inconsistent with the relevant video footage or that (ii) the Player’s bowling action during the Independent Analysis was materially different to his action in the Match in respect of which he was reported, the Player shall immediately be suspended from bowling in International Cricket until such time as he has submitted to a fresh Independent Analysis in accordance with the provisions set out in paragraph 2.4 below, and in which fresh Independent Analysis it is concluded that he has remedied his action. The suspension shall become operative from the date of receipt by the Player’s Home Board of a copy of the Independent Assessment in accordance with paragraph 2.2.10 above. Note: The ICC Standard Analysis Protocols contains reference to a level of acceptable elbow extension. Should the Independent Assessment conclude that the Player’s bowling action exhibits a degree of elbow extension of the bowling arm higher than the said acceptable level, the action of the Player shall be deemed to be an Illegal Bowling Action. It should be noted that in order for the Player’s bowling action to be classified as a legal action, the degree of elbow extension recorded for each and every delivery must be within the level of acceptable elbow extension.

. 2.2.12 In circumstances where the Independent Assessment concludes that the Player employed an Illegal Bowling Action during the Independent Analysis in respect of a specific type of delivery only, the Player will be allowed to continue bowling in International Cricket but subject to the warning (Warning) that should he continue to bowl any of the specific type(s) of delivery for which he has been found to have an Illegal Bowling Action, he will run the risk of being cited a second time. In these circumstances a further report resulting in an Independent Analysis concluding that the Player has employed an Illegal Bowling Action will result in the immediate suspension of the Player from bowling in International Cricket and such suspension shall be considered a second suspension under the provisions of paragraph 2.5 below. Note: This is intended to cover the circumstances where a Player employs a different technique to deliver a specific type of delivery e.g. propelling the ball out of the back of the hand to produce a “googly” or “doosra”. It is not intended to cover the situation where the same basic technique is used to produce a different type of delivery e.g. more effort to produce a bouncer or a yorker.

. 2.2.13 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2.2.8 above, throughout the period up to the date of receipt by the Player’s Home Board of the Independent Assessment, the Player shall be permitted to continue bowling in International Cricket. At any time throughout this period the Player is subject to being called on the field by the Umpire(s) in accordance with Law 24.2 and the consequences of such Law must apply. During this period a further Match Officials’ Report will however have no consequence.

2.2.14 In the event that the Player does not accept the conclusions of the Independent Assessment he shall be entitled to a hearing of the Bowling Review Group (BRG) as set out in paragraph 2.3 below.

. 2.2.15 In the event of a Player being reported during an ICC CWC (Men or Women), ICC World T20 (Men or Women), ICC Champions Trophy or ICC CWC Qualifier, the Independent Analysis shall be carried out and the Independent Assessment furnished on an expedited basis. In this respect, every reasonable effort shall be made for the Independent Analysis to be carried out and the Independent Assessment furnished within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the Match Officials’ Report.

2.3 Bowling Review Group Hearing

2.3.1. Upon receipt of an application for a BRG hearing in accordance with paragraph 2.3.2 below, the ICC shall appoint a BRG as follows:

. a) The BRG shall comprise the following persons: A current member of the ICC Code of Conduct Commission (in the Chair and with the casting vote only), a current ICC referee, an ex-international player, an ex-international umpire and a human movement specialist. The ICC General Manager – Cricket shall be an ex-officio member of the BRG.

. b) The Chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee shall be responsible for appointing the Chairman of the BRG from the current members of the ICC Code of Conduct Commission. Once appointed, the Chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee and the Chairman of the BRG shall be responsible for selecting the other members of the BRG in accordance with paragraphs 2.3.1 c), d) and e) below.

. c) The ex-international player and umpire shall be appointed from the list of Full Member Boards’ bowling advisors established in accordance with paragraph 5.1 below.

. d) The human movement specialist shall be appointed from the ICC panel of human movement specialists referred to in paragraph 2.2.2 above. The human movement specialist shall not be the Appointed Specialist.

. e) It is preferable that at least one of the BRG shall be a qualified legal practitioner. In the event of the BRG, as appointed in accordance with the above provisions, not including a legal practitioner then a legal practitioner shall be appointed to the BRG in an advisory capacity only and he shall not have a vote.

. f) The quorum for any hearing of the BRG shall be four persons provided that the Chairman and the human movement specialist shall be included therein.

. g) No member of the BRG shall be domiciled in the country which the Player represents in International Cricket.

2.3.2 The Player seeking a hearing of the BRG shall lodge with the ICC Head of Legal written notice thereof within 14 days of the date of receipt by the Player’s Board of the Independent Assessment. The BRG hearing will be held as soon as reasonably possible and, in any event, within 21 days of receipt by the ICC of the Player’s written notice referred to above.

. 2.3.3 The BRG hearing shall be held in person and not by telephone or video conference, although the BRG may, in its discretion, admit evidence at the hearing in any form.

. 2.3.4 The ICC shall be responsible for arranging the appointment of the BRG in accordance with paragraph 2.3.1 above and for determining in consultation with the Chairman of the BRG the time and place for the hearing. The ICC shall ensure that the Player, through the Player’s Home Board, is given reasonable notice thereof.

. 2.3.5 The Player shall attend the hearing. However, if the Player has received notice of the hearing in terms of paragraph 2.3.4 above and fails to attend the hearing, the hearing may at the absolute discretion of the Chairman of the BRG, proceed in the absence of the Player.

. 2.3.6 The Player shall be entitled to a representative who shall be entitled to attend the hearing.

. 2.3.7 The BRG hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the usual principles of natural justice.

. 2.3.8 The BRG will consider the following:

. a) The video evidence referred to in paragraph 2.1.5 above.

. b) The Match Officials’ Report.

. c) The Independent Assessment together with any image based evidence accompanying such assessment.

. d) Any further evidence that the Player and/or his representative wishes to present in the Player’s defence. This may include a written report, a verbal submission, any expert evidence and image based evidence.

. e) Any written or video evidence that the Player’s Home Board wishes to be considered on behalf of the Player.

. 2.3.9 The Player and/or his representative shall be entitled to question any person called to give evidence in the course of the hearing on any issue relevant to the hearing. The members of the BRG shall be entitled to question the Player and/or any person called to give evidence on the Player’s behalf.

. 2.3.10 After all the evidence and argument has been presented, the BRG shall adjourn the hearing to deliberate on its decision.

. 2.3.11 The BRG shall reach a decision by a simple majority vote. The Chairman of the BRG has the casting vote.

. 2.3.12 The BRG shall decide whether or not the Player has an Illegal Bowling Action and that (i) the suspension of, or the Warning to, the Player be maintained, or (ii) the suspension of, or the Warning to, the Player be lifted. The BRG must, in each case, set out the reasons why the decision has been reached, including a summary of the evidence on which the decision was based.

. 2.3.13 The ICC will communicate the decision of the BRG in writing to the Player, through his Home Board, within 48 hours of the hearing being adjourned in accordance with paragraph 2.3.10 above.

. 2.3.14 Subject to the right of the Player to re-assessment in accordance with paragraph 2.4 below, the decision of the BRG shall be final and binding.

. 2.4 Re-assessment of Player’s bowling action

. 2.4.1 A Player who has been suspended from bowling in International Cricket under these Regulations shall be permitted under the supervision and with the consent of his Home Board to continue to play domestic cricket.

. 2.4.2 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2.4.5 and paragraph 2.5 below, a Player who has been suspended from bowling in International Cricket under these Regulations, may at any time apply to the ICC for a re-assessment of his bowling action.

. 2.4.3 Such re-assessment shall be carried out in the same manner as the Independent Analysis referred to in paragraph 2.2 above save that the purpose of the comparison between the re-assessed action and the action of the Player as employed in the Match in which he was reported shall be to determine the extent, if any, of the improvement to his bowling action.

. 2.4.4 In the event of such re-assessment concluding that the Player has remedied his bowling action and that his bowling action is no longer an Illegal Bowling Action the Player’s suspension shall be lifted and he shall be permitted to continue bowling in International Cricket forthwith.

. 2.4.5 The BRG shall have the discretion to specify a fixed period before the expiry of which the Player shall not be entitled to approach the ICC for a re-assessment of his bowling action in terms hereof. Such discretion shall only be exercised in the instance of a frivolous application for a BRG hearing and the maximum period so specified shall be 1 year.

. 2.4.6 The Independent Assessment resulting from the re-assessment will stand in the place of the original Independent Assessment, and the provisions of paragraphs 2.2.10, 2.2.11, 2.2.12 and 2.2.14 and paragraph 2.3 will apply in respect of it.

. 2.5 Second and further reports In the event of a Player being suspended from bowling in International Cricket under these Regulations for a second time within a period of 2 years from the date of the commencement of the first period of suspension, the Player shall be suspended from bowling in International Cricket for a minimum period of 1 year. Only after the expiry of this 1 year period will the Player be entitled to approach the ICC for a re-assessment of his action in accordance with paragraph

2.4 above. (See also paragraph 2.2.12 above)

2.6 Costs

. 2.6.1 The ICC will be responsible for the costs of the Independent Analysis and Assessment as well as the costs of the BRG hearing, including the costs incurred by the Player to attend thereat.

. 2.6.2 The Player and/or his Home Board shall be responsible for the payment of any costs of representation of the Player and for any subsequent re-assessments carried out at the Player’s request.

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

The whole process seems both unnecessarily complicated and long winded, and the people who suffer the most are the bowlers. They have the ignominy of being reported and then have to get on a plane, fly to a testing centre to be tested. And then wait for a verdict.. And of course, the world’s media start to pick their character apart from day one. Its as if they’ve committed a crime and need to be tried and sentenced to appease the masses. Lets not forget, they learnt to bowl as kids, under the supervision of coaches and senior players. Nobody seemed to question them at that stage.

So currently the bowler has to fly to a testing centre, and, under laboratory conditions, undergo a bowling session whereby they are recorded using reflective markers placed at the strategic points on the body thus allowing the special cameras to present an image that software can translate into a statistical breakdown of human body movement.

Clearly, there are some obvious flaws in this plan that are plain to see.

Firstly, it is imperative that the bowler replicates his exact action as the one that was reported in the game. I don’t know about you, but I think that bowling in an indoor net, in a laboratory environment, does not replicate match conditions very well. During a match (that took place a few weeks previously remember) that bowler would have been coping with fatigue, injury, weather, crowd noise, situational pressure and a whole host of factors; all of which would have impacted upon his bowling action.

Secondly, and more precisely; how accurate is the marker testing really? Have you ever watched an athlete perform a skill using ultra high definition slow motion cameras? Take a look at their elbows, knees and shoulders. Take a look at their skin, especially where the markers would be placed. It moves around; quite a lot !

I would like you to try a little experiment. Point your arm out in front of you at shoulder height with the palm up. With your other hand “Gently” pinch the skin under your elbow. Now “gently” move that pinch of skin around a little. You see, skin moves and if the skin moves, the markers move.

Surely that affects marker accuracy readings?

Lastly; what if the bowler (either consciously or unconsciously) does not replicate exactly the same action as in a game?

Surely the only way to really tell if a bowler is breaking Law 24.2 in the game, is to actually measure that bowler “IN THE GAME” ?

And funnily enough, there is one system available that can actually achieve this and it is produced by a company called Kinatrax. It is being used in Major League baseball and is achieving incredible results already.

Their website is www.Kinatrax.com and if you pay them a visit, you can actually see some of their data point videos on their website. One of the key measurements is . .

. . yes you’ve guessed it . . . . .”ELBOW FLEXION !”

So there it is. A system that can not only police Law 24.2, but can actually be used for the real reason it was developed, performance enhancement. We could measure our bowlers in a variety of ways that until now was only possible using outdated, inaccurate, marker technology. Imagine being able to see real statistics in game for velocities, angles and distances over 22 data points for both your bowlers and the opposition bowlers too.

Imagine being able to receive complete scientific proof that the bowler is or is not chucking the same day.

Imagine being able to have a complete biomechanical report on every opposition bowler your team faces. I doubt that that kind of data is currently available as each board guards that kind of sensitive material closely. It will definitely give you a tactical edge.

Imagine being able to prevent injuries by monitoring your bowlers In Game, rather than waiting for the injury to occur. Each ball they bowl will give you a set of data, that can be formed into a Health versus Performance document. When the statistics change you will be able to see it far earlier before major breakdowns occur.

Imagine being able to tell whether a bowler’s action is changing and becoming less efficient actually during the game? Rather than waiting until a few poor match performances have occurred and then reviewing a players video to see why; the Kinatrax system can act as an early warning system both for performance & injury.

So there you have it. A system is available today that can police law 24.2, help reduce injuries and enhance performance.

It’s a no brainer, isn’t it?

Discuss