Latest bowling controversy shows ICC have tied their own hands
Posted by Hamish McBrearty on December 17th, 2007
After the Twenty20 game in Perth the Black Caps camp subtly raised questions over the legality of Australian tearaway bowler Shaun Tait’s action. While Tait angrily denied these allegations, it would seem the ICC’s own rules leave officials hamstrung for the time being.
The allegation of chucking can ruin a bowler’s reputation, as even after they are given the green light by experts, many will continue to believe the bowler is a chucker. While Tait certainly has an unusual action, even super slow motion replays are inconclusive as to its legality.
It has also been rather amusing to watch the Aussie press get behind Tait, The Australian newspaper branding the implied allegations, “gutless” and “cowardly”. The same newspaper who attempted to pour cold water on Muttiah Muralitharan’s world record by devoting half an article to controversies over his action from more than 10 years ago.
However, ever since controversial umpire Darrell Hair called Muralitharan for chucking in 1995, the debate
over the legalities of bowlers’ actions has been taken our of the hands of umpires and put into the hands of bio-mechanical experts with all kinds of technology. The question then has to be asked, what do these experts do when a bowler is found to have an illegal action? Apologise to all the batsmen dismissed from illegal deliveries?
The laws concerning how much a bowler may straighten his arm during delivery were changed in 2004, allowing all bowlers to straighten their arm by up to 15 degrees after a lengthy study found that almost all bowlers fell outside the tolerance levels at the time. Some have suggested that this change in the law was to accommodate Muralitharan, while others have characterized it as bringing the laws into line with modern technology.
Umpires are now required to report “suspect actions” to the match referee who will then report the bowler to the ICC Advisory Panel on Illegal Deliveries. The obvious flaw in this system is some bowlers’ actions only become suspect when they are fatigued or on certain deliveries, such as Muralitharan’s doosra or Shoaib Akhtar’s bouncer, and these players are less likely to be reported than consistent chuckers.
Tait’s action is be no means the worst on show in world cricket. New Zealander Kyle Mills has a distinct straightening in his action, while Akhtar resembles a javelin thrower at times.
In the end, the legality of Tait’s actions will be decided by a panel of scientists with high speed cameras in the nets at a cricket academy somewhere, not by an official at the ground during a real game. And this is an issue the ICC need to revisit, as the spectre of an illegal action will haunt Tait for the rest of his career under the current system.
Similar Posts:
- Black Caps stumble ahead of Chappell Hadlee defence
- Rebel Black Cap Bond blacklisted by New Zealand Cricket
- Aw Ref #2 - The Tackle
- Australia vs New Zealand 3 Innings Break
- Australia vs England 1 Innings Break
The Latest bowling controversy shows ICC have tied their own hands by Hamish McBrearty, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
