Three cheers for the crackdown on chucking : Harsha Bhogle

[Feed]

So umpires in India have started calling bowlers for chucking, and it is nice to see a forgotten law being implemented. Some bowlers, especially those who have played first-class cricket for eight or 10 years, might choose to disagree with the current practice. More... Three cheers for the crackdown on chucking India seem to have made a start to combat illegal actions by allowing umpires to call bowlers on the field Harsha Bhogle November 20, 2009 Rajesh Pawar is one of a bunch of players to have been no-balled for suspect actions this season So umpires in India have started calling bowlers for chucking, and it is nice to see a forgotten law being implemented. Some bowlers, especially those who have played first-class cricket for eight or 10 years, might choose to disagree with the current practice. They are entitled to be a bit confused, but really, in our part of the world we have no alternative. In law, in spirit and in fairness, bowling has to be a straight-arm exercise, and that definition has been mutilated over the years. I suspect the reason umpires have started calling bowlers is not because, during an off-season revision, they discovered a law that seemed abandoned, or because they feel very strongly about it, but simply because there is now a list of offenders and umpires have been given the freedom to call them. It is a welcome change. Bowlers might complain that they were fine all this time and that it is a bit unfair to call them now. But the law hasn't changed, merely the tools for its implementation. With fixed cameras at every first-class game, there is no place to hide anymore, and in any case the argument against unfairness suffers when confronted with the number of wickets that have been obtained with illegal actions over the years. In truth it had become an epidemic and had reached a stage where if we saw a finger spinner, rather than look at how good he was, we were overjoyed that he actually bowled with a straight arm. That is exactly the feeling I had when I first saw Shakib Al Hasan, the talented Bangladeshi cricketer. That he was a good bowler was almost secondary; that he didn't bend his arm was a surprise. The idea of calling a bowler on the field is sound for at least a couple of reasons. The current procedure at the ICC is cumbersome and has an in-built failure mechanism. Umpires can only report bowlers, and if they report them frequently enough (and they can keep bowling till then), the bowlers have to, after undergoing remedial action, demonstrate the legality of their action before cameras, in an artificial situation. That is easily done. Now umpires are looking at what a bowler does in tense, sometimes desperate, situations, and that is the best indicator of how clean his action is at that moment. A bowler might bowl five clean deliveries and let one slip through. Only the on-field umpires can catch the moment. India has actually done a commendable job by shortlisting bowlers with suspect actions, based on video footage, inviting them to the National Cricket Academy for remedial action and warning them that future transgressions will invite a no-ball call from an umpire. Bowlers therefore are aware that they are under the scanner, and that, in effect, takes much of the sting out of their argument. Now if everybody took care of this at domestic level, we would have few problems at the international level, where currently bowlers seem to enjoy greater latitude. What this tells me is that intent is often the starting point, and therefore the stumbling block, for change. Intent has led to this action against one of the two epidemics in our cricket. Now we must look at the second - the problem with cricketers' ages. When I see the age against a player's name on some of the graphics, I cringe. It is embarrassing. In all fairness, once players are playing international cricket it shouldn't matter what number goes against their name in the age column, since it is one player's ability versus another. And irrespective of what a certificate says, the body knows its real age and so it knows when to send out the right signals. The problem is at the Under-19 level and lower, where you see players of every vintage on the field. So either we crack down on players very early - difficult because local administrators and doctors are pretty strong and willing accomplices, or we reduce the importance given to Under-19 cricket. Today, because of the attention, and the resulting monetary benefit, there is a temptation to stay 19 for just a little while longer! It is unfair on genuine 17-year-olds because a two- or three-year age gap can be very large at that level. I'm waiting to see a news report that says an Under-19 cricketer was banned for three years for being found over-age.

[The Outsider]

Good to weed out trash like Parmar in the bud.

[Chandan]

Spare a thought... Aakash chopra, Hindustan Times November 22, 2009 First Published: 22:34 IST(22/11/2009) Last Updated: 22:35 IST(22/11/2009) In the course of the current domestic season, the BCCI has decided to play cop to what is called an illegal bowling action. Last year, the Board had begun a campaign through which six cameras monitored the standard of umpiring and the conduct of games. Logically, the same data was also used to take a closer look at bowlers with a suspect action. Towards the end of the last season, the BCCI had issued a list of over 40 such “guilty” bowlers. Apparently, all were summoned to Bangalore by the National Cricket Academy for corrective measures. This year though, the Board has gone a step ahead and empowered the umpires to no ball bowlers they think chuck. The Board has also directed umpires officiating in various age-group tournaments to follow the same protocol to stem the rot at the beginning. In the first couple of rounds of this season, there have been quite a few instances of an umpire warning a bowler by no-balling him. A bowler can be warned thrice before he is stopped from bowling. Thereafter, he has to go to the NCA to rectify/clear his action. Straight off, the BCCI’s move to clean up the system has to be lauded. After all, chucking gives the bowler an advantage over those who bowl with a clean action. But I’m not sure if anyone’s put any thought on the repercussions of the process. Personally, I think it’s going to end a few careers. A spinner (in most cases) chucks while bowling a faster one or a doosra, which can easily be avoided or corrected. But if a fast bowler has a suspect action, it’s extremely difficult to rectify it while keeping the same pace and remaining as effective. A few states have already dropped players with suspect actions and if they don’t get it right soon, they will be history. The question that needs to be addressed is what happens to bowlers who are unable to rectify their action. Where do they go? Most players have cricket as their only source of income and if that’s taken away, the consequences are devastating. For instance, once identified as chuckers they might not be allowed to play for their employers. These players have been playing serious cricket from the age of 13-14 and were encouraged to bowl the way they have been — so much so that they found themselves representing their states at the highest level. So, the system is as much to blame. Given all this, it might be a good idea to have a scheme to rehabilitate the players who have faithfully served their states for quite a few years. The onus is on the state associations, all of them have developmental funds, to stand by them and find/create opportunities that will allow them to continue make a living from cricket for a reasonable period of time. ----------------------------------------------------------- Think, Akash Chopra is speaking from a players point of view, but bowlers who chuck, and can't rectify their action even after rehabilitation don't deserve to play at all, in my opinion. If the system is to blame for earlier mistake, they need to be corrected and that is what BCCI is doing right now. I think Board's move of calling the bowlers straightaway is correct.