Looking at twitter - there seem to be a whole range of people who seem to think chucking is good for cricket for a variety of different reasons.
frankly I think this is ridiculous, however I am interested in people's views who are for extending the 15 degree tolerance for bowling actions.
(reasons like everyone does it do not count please)
As a batsman who has faced a number of "chuckers" (with plenty of
"oh, I have been cleared by the surrey coaches" b.s. as his front foot splays, chest opens in delivery and the ball is thrown at me and the red faced umpires do nothing about it) I think the crack down can't come soon enough
As a batsman you have less than a second to react, move into position and play a shot - to do so you need to have all the signals of the line and length and speed the "straight armed" delivery gives you. With a chuck it is much harder.
to balance this - here is Atherton who thinks it is good for the game
Mystery of spin is for the good of the gamehttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/columnists/mikeatherton/article4175330.ece Before the one-day international between England and Sri Lanka at Edgbaston in June, I stood in the middle watching Sachithra Senanayake bowl in practice. It was fascinating, like nothing I’d seen before, really: a combination of off spinners, leg spinners, top-spinners, carrom balls, doosras, and flickers — all bowled with an arm that straightened on delivery. I would have loved to have faced him in a match.
He was scowling a bit, and there was some anger given that he had just been reported for bowling with a suspect action, an anger that probably encouraged him later that day to “Mankad” Jos Buttler, well within his rights to do so though he was. After that, he was sent to Cardiff for testing, which he failed, and he was subsequently banned from cricket. The umpires who reported him, Ian Gould and Marais Erasmus, were clearly correct in their judgment.
Since then, Senanayake has been sent to Perth, to the University of Western Australia, for remedial work with an expert in biomechanics. I hope he manages to recalibrate his action in the six-month window that he is allowed and returns to play against England in the one-day series that starts in November and at the World Cup next winter. He is good for the game.
Gould was also the umpire who recently reported the leading spinner of the day, Saeed Ajmal, in Galle, after Pakistan’s Test match against Sri Lanka. It has been reported that the ICC is keen to crack down on suspected illegal actions, that, to quote Geoff Allardice, the ICC’s general manager: “Some bowlers operating with suspect actions should be scrutinised more closely.” That attitude has been borne out by the facts: Ajmal is now the fifth bowler, after Senanayake, Kane Williamson, Marlon Samuels and Shane Shillingford, to be reported within the past year.
The ICC is helped in its crusade, if indeed that is what it is, by the preponderance of umpires from outside the sub-continent on the elite panel. There is undoubtedly a cultural difference at work here: the perception of what is acceptable in a bowling action is different in countries that have not produced so-called “mystery” spinners. Of the 12 umpires on the elite panel, four are from Australia, where the doosra is not encouraged, four are from England, where it is not generally bowled, and there is one each from New Zealand and South Africa. Only two, Kumar Dharmasena and Aleem Dar, are from the sub-continent.
Is there a contradiction in saying that Gould and his colleagues are right to report suspect actions, and saying that Ajmal and others who clearly straighten their arms to the point at which they become suspect, are good for the game? Martin Crowe, the former New Zealand captain who is one of the sharpest thinkers on the game, would say so, since, in his MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey Lecture some years ago, he described throwing as the game’s “Achilles’ heel”. I disagree.
Cricket is a great game when the balance between bat and ball is maintained, and the Laws are adhered to. For many years, covered pitches made of hard loams that did not break up over the course of a five-day game, and the preponderance of batsmen using their pads as a second line of defence, meant that it was increasingly difficult for traditional — orthodox — spinners to make their mark. Twenty years ago, there were half the number of spinners in the top 20 of the world rankings as there are now.
What has changed? Two things: the advent of Hawk-Eye and the Decision Review System (DRS) has encouraged more umpires to give batsmen out on the front foot, with the result that they have to use their bats and not their pads, so that spinners can more easily threaten both edges of the bat. Second, there has been a relaxation in the allowances given to bowlers in how much they are allowed to straighten their arms, so that a number of “mystery” spinners have sprung up, able to bowl doosras, carrom balls and flickers from a front-on action with an arm that moves from bent to straight, so challenging batsmen in more ways than traditional finger spinners were able to achieve.
Aficionados will know the reasons for this relaxation, and why the ICC allows bowlers to flex their bowling arm to a maximum of 15 degrees in apparent contravention of Law 24.3. This is because technological advances found that virtually all bowlers straightened their arm to some degree, even those who looked pure to the naked eye. During the Champions Trophy in 2004, a number of bowlers were analysed and only one bowled with an absolutely straight arm: Ramnaresh Sarwan.
Initially, the tolerances were set at 5 degrees for spinners, 7.5 degrees for medium-pace bowlers and 10 degrees for fast bowlers, until this, too, was found to be unworkable because they were too low. In 2005, the tolerance was set at 15 degrees and there it has remained since.
In some ways, it was an arbitrary setting, although based on the understanding that any straightening of the arm over 15 degrees becomes visible to the naked eye, at which point umpires can report players for further scrutiny and testing.
No doubt the ICC’s initial moves to override Law 24.3 were inspired by the fear of legal action. If it banned a bowler because he obviously threw, that bowler would be more than justified in taking the authorities to court once it could be shown that nearly all bowlers break the Law when they bowl. The unintended consequence was the aforementioned proliferation of “mystery” finger spinners, mainly from the sub-continent.
The balance between bat and ball in cricket is like a fragile ecosystem. You tinker with it at your peril, but because of the nature of the game, things happen to keep it more or less in balance. Batsmen have prospered through the covering of pitches, protective equipment, better bats, smaller boundaries and innovative shots. For a while it looked as though things were tilting too far, but DRS and the allowances on straightening the arm have recalibrated it.
But this is where the present activism of Gould and his fellow umpires is important. No one, I think, would like to see it get out of control. No one would wish to see cricket become a version of baseball, where bowlers are simply allowed to run up and blatantly chuck the ball. The fragile ecosystem would then face obliteration.
The message has been sent recently that there are limits, that the umpires are vigilant and that the ICC will act if it is felt to be getting out of control. Soon enough, technology will allow for testing to be done during match conditions.
Those who argue against bowlers, such as Ajmal, must do so on statistical grounds, since all bowlers have been shown to break Law 24.3. How, it is argued, can you compare bowlers from different generations when some were allowed to straighten their arms and some were not? But statistical comparisons have always been problematic: how can you compare the figures of batsmen who played on uncovered pitches and those who did not wear helmets, with present-day players? And besides, statistics are irrelevant compared to the development, beauty and mystery of the game.
Muttiah Muralitharan showed that it is possible to be a great bowler within the limits — his doosra was tested at 14 degrees tolerance. Ajmal has been cleared before. He will have the chance to be cleared again or, if not, modify his action until it is within the limits that are set. As will Senanayake. The game moves on.
High left elbows, playing in the “V” and sideways-on actions dominated the scene for a long time. But that was a monochrome cricket world in comparison. These skills are far too important and beautiful to lose — provided things do not get out of control.
Author
Topic: Chucking in cricket is acceptable because... (Read 3408 times)