ICC addresses illegal bowling actions

[Hondo]

Well finally, they have made it official. About time ICC got their act together and did something about it. This is great news for Murali, this will clear all the controversy sorrounding him.



Cricinfo staff

February 5, 2005




The ICC hopes that the innuendo will finally end © Getty Images



The International Cricket Council's Chief Executives' Committee has approved proposals aimed at ending the malaise over illegal bowling actions. Under the new proposals, the tolerance limit - for straightening of the arm - for all bowlers will be set at 15 degrees, which studies have shown is when the naked eye can make out excessive straightening. The changes were suggested by an expert panel chaired by Sunil Gavaskar, the former Indian opening batsman, and the changes will come into effect from March 1, 2005.

There will be increased commitment to working with the problem at the junior level, and changes in the testing, analysis and review procedures currently being employed. The new regulations will be based on the findings of the ICC's research programme which discovered that most bowlers are likely to straighten their arm to a level undetectable by the naked eye during the bowling action.

The key elements of the regulations are:


An acceptance that the focus of the law concerning illegal actions is that it seeks to deal with the extension of the arm that is visible to the naked eye


All bowlers will be permitted to straighten their bowling arm up to 15 degrees, which has been established as the point at which any straightening will become visible to the naked eye


The introduction of a shorter, independent review process under the central control of the ICC with immediate suspensions for bowlers found to have illegal actions


The overhaul and standardisation of the bio-mechanical testing of bowlers to ensure that all tests in all laboratories are consistent in the way that they measure the degree of straightening



Strengthening of the initiatives to deal with the issue at the international and regional Under-19 level

Malcolm Speed, the ICC's chief executive, admitted that there might be a strong reaction from sections of the cricket community, but he insisted that the radical overhaul in the laws was necessary to deal with a problem that has plagued cricket ever since the near-epidemic of chucking in the late 1950s.

"This issue has afflicted the game for over sixty years. Try as it might, the sport has never properly come to terms with it," said Speed. "Every time it comes up there are emotional reactions from people around the world based on fear and ignorance and I've no doubt we will see them all again this time.

"The reality is that this new process provides the game with a sensible way forward to properly protect against people breaking the rules while providing every opportunity for players with illegal actions to remedy any problems and return to the game."

The committee included Aravinda de Silva, Angus Fraser, Michael Holding, Tony Lewis and Tim May, along with David Richardson, the former South African wicketkeeper who is now on the ICC staff. Their proposals were then considered by the ICC's Cricket Committee, made up of former international players and umpires which was chaired by Gavaskar.

Gavaskar said that one of the strengths of the new procedures was that they had been brought forward and scrutinised by people who had played international cricket, and who also had the benefit of understanding the latest research findings on the issue.

"These recommendations have come from people who have played the game at the highest level and who have a deep appreciation of the issues," he said. "While the scientific evidence presented made the case for changing the current bowling review process compelling, it is a cricketing decision, proposed by cricketers for cricketers.

"The changes should make the process quicker and fairer to all players and will promote consistency in the way in which reported bowlers' actions are dealt with."

Speed also used the opportunity to make clear that rumours that the ICC had examined the actions of players from the past were without basis. "It is simply not possible to go back and use old footage to analyse the actions of bowlers from previous generations," said Speed. "There were reports that suggested that players such as Dennis Lillee, Sir Richard Hadlee, Jeff Thomson and Imran Khan had been analysed by the ICC panel when this simply isn't possible."

Any bowler who has been reported under the old system will be dealt with under that system although it is likely that this will have little practical affect given the current playing commitments for these players. Additionally, no bowler who had been pulled up under the old system will be cleared as a result of the adoption of these recommendations by the ICC Chief Executives' Committee.

More on this:

Right on target

Kamran Abbasi






Increased use of technology means that bowlers can be tested in ways which weren't possible before © Getty Images



Towards the end of last year, ICC possibly made the most fundamental rule change in its history. The new tolerance level of 15 degrees on bowling actions has triggered a controversy that some say separates traditionalists from modernists. I suggest it separates the ignorant from the enlightened. The question for cricket is how it can adapt to the forensic examination that blanket television coverage conducts. On this occasion I believe that ICC has made a surprisingly wise change to the laws of cricket. And this belief has nothing to do with my involvement in the law change as an advisor to the ICC.

First, let's be clear about the challenge that television coverage has created for lawmakers. Technology allows viewers to observe bowlers' actions in microscopic detail, picking out kinks in a bowler's action that would previously have gone unnoticed. By the same token, technology now offers us a much better understanding of the biomechanics of a bowling action, a level of detail that has clearly shown that although we once believed that most bowlers could bowl with a straight arm, most in fact have some straightening at the elbow when the arm swings from the level of the shoulder through to the point of delivery.

We now know that going by the strict interpretation of the original laws of cricket, virtually all bowlers are chuckers, sinners in their professional trade. We also know that there are all sorts of other joint movements - at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist - taking place during delivery, and not just simple straightening of the elbow joint. In addition, the degree of movement at each joint varies from person to person in a mostly unpredictable way. The complexities of these different movements is such that when biomechanics experts explained them to the ICC's panel on illegal actions, the panelists - including stern critics of the moves to revise the laws, like Michael Holding - burst out laughing because the range of movements were bewildering when considered in microscopic detail.

The dilemma faced by the ICC was that it had evidence that many bowlers were unwittingly breaking the law as stated. What was it to do with this information? Was it right to insist on a law that modern technology had shown was now irrelevant to our understanding of the biomechanics of a bowling action? Was it right to keep a law that labelled modern bowlers as "cheats" even though modern bowlers were bowling just as their predecessors had?

Clearly the answer to this had to be no - and the law had to change. In which case, should there be a different rule for spinners and faster bowlers? And was the current tolerance level of 10 degrees for fast bowlers a reasonable one for spinners? What about differentiating legspinners and offspinners? What about other categories of bowlers, such as medium-pacers? This is where the ICC really got it right: the suggestion of a single tolerance level for all bowlers is simple and fair. By increasing this tolerance level to 15 degrees, ICC has again got it right, acknowledging that the most comprehensive - and latest - research shows that a tolerance level of 10 degrees was not sufficient to cater to the range of natural variation exposed by these detailed investigations. Otherwise players that we all believe to be clean would become criminals overnight.

It is now clear that straightening of the elbow during delivery is a normal human biomechanical reaction and must be allowed to some degree if cricket is to remain a serious competitive sport and not become a kindergarten game. And a tolerance level of 15 degrees is reasonable because it outlaws a small proportion of players and may well be the level of straightening that is detectable by the human eye.

These moves by the ICC should help cricket resolve a major crisis in the sport with a solution that is fair, well-researched, and above all simple. The status quo or a more complicated solution would have continued to make a mockery of the delicate issue of illegal bowling actions. This new law proposed by the ICC is a brave and sensible attempt to come to terms with the challenges of modern technology and our improved understanding of biomechanics. It is a law we should all support.

Kamran Abbasi is a London-based cricket writer, and deputy editor of the British Medical Journal.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Hondo

This is great news for Murali

You're far from the first person to say that, Hondo, but I simply don't follow the logic of the statement at all. Murali has, in the past, been no-balled because umpires have seen the flex in his delivery. The new regulation from 1 March means that you are only making an illegal delivery in respect of straightening your arm if you straighten by more than 15 degrees; and all the experts are telling us that that is the amount of flex which the naked eye can detect. So are we not still in a position whereby, if straightening can be seen, then the delivery is illegal? As far as practicalities are concerned for the umpire in the middle, I can't see that this makes a jot of difference.

I'm afraid this whole issue has been so much hot air. The controversy will rattle on forever, and Murali will continue to attract his share of suspicion.

[Occasional Fan]

I do get irritated as well by these cricket writers (Abbasi being one) who seem to think that the ICC is changing the laws of the game here. It isn't. The ICC does not set the laws of the game. The MCC does that. The ICC only governs international cricket, which leads to the ridiculous situation that, from 1 March, the new tolerances referred to above will apply in international cricket and the strict letter of the law applies below international level. Good luck to bowling coaches and umpires everywhere!

[Zainub]

OF,

This is not about Murali or anyone person in particular, its about all bowlers in general. An ICC research I'm sure you will know determined that all but one percent of international bowlers exceeded the previous tolerance levels, inclduing people like Glenn McGrath, who have been talked about forever as having a text book action. If ICC didn't change the tolerence levels it would meen banning 99% of international bowlers. That wouldn't be quite practical don't you think?

[Hondo]

Occasional Fan, previous time murali was reported was due to his bend arm from an accident he had. Becasue of that, for the naked arm it looked he was bending his arm which has been cleared twice now.

I think ICC finally did the right thing. They saw the scientific evidence and saw that their current laws were falwed and changed it.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Hondo

Well finally, they have made it official. About time ICC got their act together and did something about it. This is great news for Murali, this will clear all the controversy sorrounding him.

I hope you are right Hondo, that chap has been to hell and back, but I reckon nothing will satisfy some of the Murali knockers.
Time to leave him alone, been got at for to long.

[Hondo]

I agree Ern. If everyone just leave him alone and let him concentrate on cricket I think we will see some really good cricket out fo him.

There are some exciting cricketing ahead. Specially if Warne also come out of retirement (in ODI), and then we could see these two great bowlers going head to head.

[Occasional Fan]

I do agree with that, Zainub, but the logic as I see it is that there will still be some bowlers who have flex beyond 15 degrees - they are the ones who have been visibly flexing in the past, of whom Murali is one (and not the only one). We are surely still in a position whereby, if the umpire can see the flex with the naked eye, then an illegal delivery has occurred. The regulation change simply brings the letter of the regulation into line with the measuring equipment which is available to the umpire - i.e. his eyes. And that, from a practical viewpoint, means the whole exercise is a waste of time.

Bowlers will now be called if they flex by more than 15 degrees; previously they were called if the umpire could see the flex. But, by the admission of all the experts, "15 degrees" and "the amount that is visible to the naked eye" are the same thing.

This is as useful as changing the speed limit from 70 mph to 112 km/h - they're the same thing, so people will still drive just as fast.

[Ernest]

Well we have him as our overseas player at Lancashire this year, tell you what Hondo, he will get a welcome here.

Yes Murali and Warne head to head, doubt Warne will play one day cricket again, when these two spinners retire, what a gap will be created.

[Occasional Fan]

Hondo and Ern: Please don't get me wrong here. I am not, in this argument, trying to knock Murali or anyone else. Discussions about his action have already taken place on this board and doubtless will again, but they are not the issue which I am trying to raise here. I just think - as I have tried (maybe unsuccessfully) to explain in my last post - that the ICC's logic in changing this regulation as they have is flawed, and that practically this change should have no effect on whether any particular bowler is called for throwing or not. I can't think of a better analogy than the speed limit one I have posted above.