Rule changes good for cricket

[Occasional Fan]

Zainub - first of all, don't worry about sounding harsh! Certainly I take no offence.

I agree to some extent with your thoughts on Boycott - though I'm not sure it is envy. He was certainly forthright in his contention that pressure had been brought to bear by the Sri Lanka board and that the ICC is now planning to allow Murali to do whatever he likes. To be honest, that might not be a popular thing for him to have said, and certainly he's as blunt in his delivery as any Yorkshireman I've ever come across. However, I actually believe he is right in this case. Whatever the other arguments, I am sure that if Murali had not been on the scene the ICC would not have been making this change to its rules and we wouldn't be having this exchange. To that extent, and without in any way denigrating Murali, I think there is a strong argument that he has been treated as a special case and that the ICC has taken action to accommodate his special circumstances.

I'm also a little confused by the argument in your final paragraph. Surely the umpires only called no-ball in the past if there was a clear-cut bending of the arm? The "experts", after all, have said that they could only see it if it was more than 15 degrees. Or are you saying that suspect actions were sometimes being reported without no-ball being called? If that is the point, then I have some sympathy. It shouldn't be open to an umpire or referee to report an action which has not been called as a throw in actual play - that opens the door to the possibility of umpires and referees jeopardising people's careers on a suspicion, and that definitely would be a bad thing.

[Oliver]

There has been some difficulty over the last few years for umpires calling "chuckers." I believe the ICC banned them from doing it for a while.

The next problem for me comes from this: If the bowler has to flex beyond fifteen degrees to be visible to the naked eye when he is "throwing" why can't the umpires then call him for a no-ball?
OK - they can now - apparently.

But the point here is, some umpires did call Murali for "throwing" because they thought that he was.

Now in this time of saturation media coverage you would have thought that the chaps in the laboratory would be able to use actual live Test match (or ODI) footage for checking the umpires decisions.

I mean, let's face it, how hard is it going to be for a bowler to bowl legally in laboratory conditions after he has had his career threatened by all and sundry for a few deliveries on the World stage?

Not very.

The way I look at it is... the inadequacies of the naked human eye allowed various umpires to believe that Murali was "throwing." These same inadequacies only allow the human eye to see a "chuck" when the angle is greater than fifteen degrees.

Therefore Murali was "chucking."

How can I make this clearer?

They thought he was "chucking" (allegedley) so he must have been flexing greater than fifteen degrees, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to see him.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Oliver

The way I look at it is... the inadequacies of the naked human eye allowed various umpires to believe that Murali was "throwing." These same inadequacies only allow the human eye to see a "chuck" when the angle is greater than fifteen degrees.

Therefore Murali was "chucking."

How can I make this clearer?

They thought he was "chucking" (allegedley) so he must have been flexing greater than fifteen degrees, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to see him.

Well.. those self-same critics reckon he's "chucking" when he wears a brace that stops him flexing his arm one bit: his delivery of so odd that it's pretty much impossible (with the naked eye) to see what he's doing.

Also.. because the arm is moving in multiple plains the only way of filming the actions to give the laboratory people even a fighting chance is with a series of super-slo-mo cameras... and those are not the sort of cameras routinely used at cricket grounds!

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Oliver

The flexibility law has been changed to the "n"th degree, (and by your words:"the rule was hence necessary other wise all bowlers would have to be banned") if the bowler exceeds the enormous margin of 15 degrees he is clearly seeking a massive advantage. He cannot have done that by mistake.

He must know what he is doing.

He must be attempting to cheat.

And that is simply not acceptable. A bowler called for exceeding the new law, must be banned for life.

Oliver, this part of your post I definitely agree with, and would wholeheartedly support. In fact, whatever one's views on the law changes, most of the people who wish to see honest and competitive cricket would support the life ban.

This would also address one of your other concerns - if the penalty of exceeding 15 degrees is so punitive and severe, bowlers will ensure that they do not "push the rules", and coaches such as Buchanan would not lick their lips in anticipation of pushing the boundaries of what is legal.

There would however need to be a much more rigorous, balanced and just mechanism for awarding life bans - simply being called by one or two umpires should not be enough, as each umpire is different and a sanction as severe as this needs to be consistently and justly applied, with an appropriate appeal mechanism.

[Zainub]

Murali's action is very, very complex and that too is an understatement...That's why I think we should try and look at the new rule by looking beyond Murali and his doosras, and tesras, and what not...I don't know if these rules have been changed to accomodate him in partciular but I'd like to think they weren't - the ICC's special committe that has come up with the 15 degree rule based its recommendatio on broad based research carried out by the ICC during the CT, the subject of which was "ill legal bowling actions" and not Murali , or any one. Only God can tell if chucking would have been such a big issue today had Murali not existed, but I like to beleive (even if it does seem like living in wonderland) that any game it self is bigger and hence more vital than any individual.

[Maranello]

I have come to this thread a bit late in the day, so will refrain from repeating arguments that have already been made by Rachael and Zainub - and in fairness, they have posted far more eloquently than I would have!

The following extract, from Lawrence Booth's Spin (The Guardian) is nonetheless interesting, since it brings a few other points to the discussion.

In particular, Point 3 (about Murali) merits reading.

Where the old rules bred suspicion and were loaded against slower bowlers - who were allowed less flexion than the quicks, even if they had faster shoulder actions - the new one is as clear-cut as possible.

A few facts:

1) The umpires will not have to make any more of a judgement on the field than they did before. Consultation with the match referee and tact (only blatant chucks will be called on the field) are the rules of thumb.

2) The figure of 15 degrees combines scientific rigour with common sense. Three biomechanics experts used cameras shooting at 250 frames per second to determine that 15 degrees is the point at which a chuck starts to become visible to the naked eye. It is both practical and logical, therefore, that this should be the starting point for any action against a bowler.

3) This has got nothing to do with Murali, who in any case is the victim of an unusually rotatable shoulder, a freakishly supple wrist and a deformed arm - the sum total of which (thanks here to Amit
Varma and his outstanding blog on CricInfo) is an optical illusion that persuades us something is amiss. It isn't, and he even bowled with his right arm in a brace to prove it.

4) Under the old guidelines (10 degrees flexion allowed for fast bowler, 7.5 for medium-pacers and 5 for spinners) it was discovered that virtually everyone, not just Murali, chucks at some stage. The
new regulations shift the boundaries because they plainly need to do so if the game is not to disintegrate.

5) The process by which a bowler is suspected of chucking has been streamlined, saving time and money and reducing the level of humiliation for the bowler.

6) If that's a can of worms, then the Spin is a giant octopus.

The ICC are doing their best to simplify an issue that has become dangerously fertile material for the pub bore. And for that we should all be grateful.

[Zainub]

An excellent selection of views made here by Maranello that completely throw Shane Warne's "confusion" terminology out of the window. As I now understand most of the respected and widely read cricket columnists have appreciated this move (Peter Roebuck, Amit Varma, Simon Hughes, Angus Fraser ...we have our odd doses of Andrew Miller speaking against of his hatred for science being used in sport (not to mention his dislike of football) but by and large most people view this as a step in the right direction.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello's Guardian piece

The umpires will not have to make any more of a judgement on the field than they did before. Consultation with the match referee and tact (only blatant chucks will be called on the field) are the rules of thumb.

I think this is entirely right and proper: Ashley Giles has a good throwing arm.. as witnessed when he fields in the deep.. and if he gets fed up of getting carted all over the shop and pitches the ball baseball style as a "variation" then (when he's finally finished laughing) he should (of course) call the throw.

There's always going to be a line to be drawn somewhere.. and tough case might arise where a bowler like the now increasiungly pedestrian Gough or Cairns suddenly produces an extra bit of zip.. apparently out of no-where.. with just the slightest hint of flexing (say 15-20 degrees): that's going to put the umpire on the spot.. especially if it leads to a wicket...

Instinct says... it's only a game.. and if a team wants to win it by cheating then let them.. but when the game is over... take a damned hard look.. then indicate there might be a problem and give that side the opportunity to do something about it.. and if they don't take the matter seriously then throw the book at the team as a whole for bringing the game into disrepute.

I'm far more concerned that the right message goes out about the place of cheating in the sport (zero tolerance) than I am about any technical issue: so long as the ICC guys are convinced that the matter is being taken seriously by all concerned... that anything suspect is being dealt with by sides determined to be whiter thnan white.. then maybe they should just let everything else slide.

Sides that seem unwilling to make that effort should be sanctioned as sides: they had the option of tryign to sort out the player's action or of droppingthe player.. and if they failed to take the necessary measures then that's not the player's responsibility.. it's the responsibility of the board / selectors / coach / captain.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I think this is entirely right and proper: Ashley Giles has a good throwing arm.. as witnessed when he fields in the deep.. and if he gets fed up of getting carted all over the shop and pitches the ball baseball style as a "variation" then (when he's finally finished laughing) he should (of course) call the throw.

Instinct says... it's only a game.. and if a team wants to win it by cheating then let them.. but when the game is over... take a damned hard look.. then indicate there might be a problem and give that side the opportunity to do something about it.. and if they don't take the matter seriously then throw the book at the team as a whole for bringing the game into disrepute.

... it's the responsibility of the board / selectors / coach / captain.

This isn't going to work is it. Not all the way across the board. It's like the ICC insisting that every country continues to tour Zimbabwe, because there's nothing really wrong there!!!

Vaughan was on 191 or something when Brett Lee dismissed him with a "throw" during our last Australian tour I don't know many Englishmen who were convinced of the purity of that delivery. Lee wasn't "called." I think at that time umpires were not allowed to "call."

I can't remember much useful input from the "board / selectors / coach / captain" during the Shakoor Rana affair.
England had been in a winning position - two days later the match continued and petered out into a draw.

Sadly sport is no longer a game. It is a business, involving hundreds of thousands of pounds, millions of dollars and billions of rupees.

On the "sub-continent" there is a great deal of honour attached to the winning of cricket matches. Much more so than here, though you'd not believe it by the torrent of ridiculous media/tabloid coverage. It occurs to me that quite often the "board / selectors" etc., (from whichever country) are not remotely responsible.

And because of that the rules (as ever) will be stretched to breaking point.

I doubt very much whether umpires will bother "calling" anyone for fear of being made to look stupid.
And by that token, nobody will ever be banned for "chucking" because if anyone is actually called for it in a match they will then go and bowl with the biomechanics in some laboratory who will then stand up and say: "there's nothing wrong with his action. Throughout testing he bowled entirely within the fifteen degree limit."

The only way an umpire can now be backed up is, if match conditions become laboratory conditions.

That should happen sooner rather than later. But it won't.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Oliver

I can't remember much useful input from the "board / selectors / coach / captain" during the Shakoor Rana affair.
England had been in a winning position - two days later the match continued and petered out into a draw.

The match petered out into a draw because the English captain was not reprimanded or warned by the coach and other players. The TCCB, instead of banning him for life, actually had the nerve to back him for two days, before finally doing the half-decent thing and asking him to apologise for acting like an uncultured, semi-literate chav.

I do agree with you on part of your first sentence - there was no useful input from the "board / selectors / coach" during the first day or two of the Gatting affair and we should expect even less now - cricket has unfortunately turned into big business, and values such as decency and good manners are no longer paramount, if they ever were.