Chucking summit

[Rachael]

You are winning me around, Oliver.

I still have this great aversion to much of the fuss made about "chucking": Parkison's rants really wind me up.. and the whining of those Aussies who got on his case really ****** me off. For me, watching Murali bamboozle batsmen remains one of the few sights in modern cricket that really IS a pleasure to behold. I also think he's a pretty special case.. that he should be encouraged to bowl with and arm brace to ensure he's above reproach.. and that the the sooner the debate shifts to more mainstream bowlers the better.

With that said.. your case for upholding the ideal of a classic action is hard to fault.

If the pressure on Murali can lead to arm braces being developed to a high standard (of effectiveness, of ease of use) for using (a) as coaching aids; and {b} for on the field of play... then great: firstly it should eliminate the controversy and get people focussed on the cricket.. but beyond that it should also make it easier to avoid the sort of controversies that have beset countless fast bowlers these past few years.

[Mike Small]

When I was down in Karachi I was listening to this interview on Pakistan State Television of the ICC president Ehsan Mani, he said rules changes are pondered over by the ICC cricket sub committee - the same committee whose chairman happens to be Mr. Gavaskar - and you must be a former international cricketer to be a part of that committee. On more than a few occasions did he stress that he wanted and wished the game to be ruled by those who play it.

Although those were ironic comments since the committee itself could only propose recommendations, and any changes as such must be approved by the executive board of the ICC it self comprising of representatives from all test playing nations and 3 more associate counties. So I guess the rule changes are being made not by the ICC directly - but indirectly by the players them selves. For your knowledge former cricketers who are a part of the ICC's sub committee I'm told are chose on the basis of votes caste by present day players.In any case I agree that MCC should be involved at some stage of the decision making process, and that power of introducing any new rule or modifying any existing rule should not be held solely in the hands of the ICC.

[Occasional Fan]

It is quite an important point, in fact. Readers of my posts over the last several months will have seen me comment more than once that, in my opinion, the international game and the village green game are one and the same. This is why I get annoyed with the ICC's "rules and regulations", which override the Laws in some cases. The trouble is that people at all levels of the game start to believe that the international rules should apply at all levels. To take a current example, in the ICCCT last month an experiment was conducted whereby the (three) umpires had access to various bits of electronic gadgetry to make their decisions better/more consistent/easier. All well and good, but it only works if you have a regulation (as the ICC does) which requires TV cameras to be at all games under your jurisdiction and requires monitors etc. to be made available to the third umpire. At any level of the game below international, this becomes hit and miss. In England many county games are not televised, and when you get down to the village green it is not always possible even to find two umpires, let alone three. Hence my preference that the ICC butt out of the Laws altogether. Let the MCC (or anyone other than the ICC, which is only interested in international games) set the Laws and let the ICC play according to them.

Now, provision of technical assistance to the umpires at top level, within reason, is not something I will forever oppose (e.g. I have no problems with light meters, I don't really mind if the third umpire is calling no-ball as long as it is done "in real time", but I am a long way from being convinced about giving Hawkeye to the umpires, but that's another story altogether). However, interfering with the Laws as to what constitutes a legal bowling action is something which the MCC should be dealing with, not the ICC (if it needs dealing with at all, which I believe it does not). It is nonsensical for the ICC to introduce "tolerances" when the Laws do not allow for flexion of the elbow, since players aspiring to international status will either have to bowl to a different standard according to whether they are playing an international or other game or risk being no-balled in all games but the internationals.

[Alison]

I'm rather confused, how and by whom do the rules get changed?

[Occasional Fan]

The Laws of Cricket are within the exclusive purview of the MCC. The ICC makes regulations regarding international matches, but cannot interfere with the Laws - although it tries very hard, as with all this nonsense concerning what constitutes a legal bowling action.