IT was only in the new millennium that cricket's law pertaining to `chucking' finally defined a fair delivery. Until then, it had only outlined a throw.
SANJAY RAJANThe Laws of Cricket, Definition of fair delivery — the arm, 2000 Code. A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.
IT was only in the new millennium that cricket's law pertaining to `chucking' finally defined a fair delivery. Until then, it had only outlined a throw.
The Law in the 1980 Code was, Definition of a throw. A ball shall be deemed to have been thrown, if, in the opinion of either umpire, the process of straightening the bowling arm, whether it be partial or complete, takes place during that part of the delivery swing which directly precedes the ball leaving the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from the use of the wrist in the delivery swing.
It must be said that the game's governing body took an awfully long time to get down to defining a fair delivery. For, `chucking' is not a recent phenomenon, though the list of bowlers with suspect action has been on the rise over the last decade, putting the game in danger of losing its mass appeal.
There had been a similar situation in world cricket in the late 1950s and early 1960s. And interestingly, the late Sir Len Hutton's then view on the subject held good until the turn of the century.
The former England captain said that the way to rid cricket of the `chucker' was to find a clear definition of what is a `bowl', not try to find one for what is a throw.
He said that the average umpire could hardly be expected to have the reasoning powers of judgment of a supreme court judge and that the definition should be so clear that umpires became merely judges of fact. He admitted that it was hard to arrive at such a definition, but the legal opinion of the highest order should be sought for a wording that would be crystal clear.
In his book, Perchance to Bowl, John Waite, the former Springbok wicketkeeper-batsman, dedicated a chapter — Cricket in the Throws — the Meckiff-Griffin Case — on the issue which in Sir Don Bradman's words could `cause the greatest catastrophe in the history of cricket.'
Griffin, the South African speedster, was no balled out of the game in 1960, as was Ian Meckiff, the Australian quickie, in 1964. Having played both, among other bowlers with suspect actions, Waite noted that you cannot `throw' a ball from a closed position, only from an open or a squared shoulder position.
"I believe that `chuckers' can be detected by the direction in which their foot points in the delivery stride as much as by watching the arm itself. Another guide is the slant of the head. Most `suspect' bowlers have their head slanting away from their bowling shoulder."
In fact, Griffin, who wore an aluminium splint on his right arm in an exhibition match on that tour of England, was sent to Alf Gover, the famous bowling coach, who said that if Griffin concentrated upon trying to bowl out-swingers from the natural sideways-facing position and from near the stumps, he could not possibly throw.
The general feeling over the years is that the ambiguous wording of the Law has been the cause of all the trouble. The latest Code is clear in that the emphasis is on what is a fair delivery rather than a throw. Also, it is stringent on removing the bowler from the line.
But then, all these are negated by not giving the field umpire a free hand. A series of events in the mid-90s saw the ICC decide that the game does not wish its umpires to rule on such sensitive subjects. A 10-man ICC Cricket Committee, headed by Clyde Walcott, reviewed the Laws on throwing and the umpires were given the option of referring the case to the match referee rather than decide on the pitch.
The philosophy behind this was to give the bowler a chance rather than consign him immediately to the recess of history. But this only led to loosening of controls on, throwing and more and more bowlers with suspect actions entered the international arena, knowing pretty well that they can get away if their Boards backed them.
In fact, during a seminar held after the 2000 Code, the international umpires were briefed that they only refer a bowler with suspect action to the match referee (in the worry that any on-field decision could upset the world order). Moreover, open scrutiny of this kind cannot be afforded at the highest level, especially against established bowlers... at least not in this age.
Owing to a variety of reasons the ICC is not meeting this problem head-on. There are only two ways out. Either the member countries unite to eradicate `chucking,' or take up Keith Miller's line of thought when `chucking' reared its ugly head in the 50s and 60s.
"Yes, forget about those slight kinks and get on with the game. If the legislators cannot find a satisfactory solution, and it seems they cannot, then let the `suspect' bowlers carry on. Then we'll all go to cricket to watch Colin Cowdrey and Norman O'Neill bat as we used to go and watch Don Bradman and Wally Hammond. At the moment all the beauty of batting, bowling and fielding is being `elbowed' into a sideshow," the legendary Aussie all-rounder had said.
So very true even in this day and age...
Comments
SHARE