Chucking – a complex problem that still does not have a satisfactory answer
Chucking issue yet to find answers
Sir Viv Richards and Michael Holding raised concerns about the legality of Saeed Ajmal’s action during Pakistan’s tour to West Indies © Getty Images[/caption] By Akash Kaware At the end of the recent Test series between the West Indies and Pakistan, West Indian legends like Viv Richards and Michael Holding raised some concerns about the legality of the bowling action of Saeed Ajmal - one of Pakistan’s success stories from the series. Quite predictably, blogosphere was agog with ranting fans who said that such things are only brought up by supporters of teams that are clueless against spin. But there’s no smoke without fire, and you only have to watch Ajmal, and indeed some other bowlers, in action for a while to notice that their detractors might just have a point. As much as I enjoy seeing bowlers like Ajmal outfox batsmen in an era when the bat inordinately dominates the ball, such sorcery needs to toe the 15-degree line drawn by the International Cricket Council (ICC). And if one is to believe the evidence of the naked eye, then many bowlers around the world take advantage of the fact that umpires are humans, not humanoids who can detect the flexion of a bowler’s arm. A layman’s version of original law against chucking states that while a bowler is free to use his wrist whichever way he likes, the straightening of the elbow, whether partially or completely, is illegal and constitutes chucking. Because of this law, several bowlers over the years had their actions reported and underwent corrective sessions with ICC experts. Then, a few years ago, an Australian university came out with some surprising findings. A thorough biomechanical analysis of bowling actions around the world concluded that virtually all bowlers flexed their elbows to some extent. Even bowlers like Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock, perennial examples of bowlers with near-perfect bowling actions, were found to flex their elbows through about 8-10 degrees. Off-spinners are usual suspects, but even leg-spinners, for whom you would expect chucking to be physically impossible, were found to have illegal actions as per the original law. This led to an amendment to the original law, and finally a tolerance of 15 degrees was allowed to all bowlers, the rationale being that if a bowler flexes his arm more than that, it is possible for the naked eye to detect it. The rationale was sound, but if an extension that can be detected by the naked eye constitutes a throw now, then many bowlers seem to be getting away with it. Review process can differ from match situations It is possible that not all umpires prefer to be as confrontational as Darrell Hair, and hence choose to report bowlers to an ICC panel rather than call him in a match. However, let’s face it, there is no way to know if the bowlers who are found to be within the required limits during a review process, and thereby are cleared, are within limits during matches too. This is not to say that bowlers with suspect actions are cheats. After all, how do you expect a bowler to know the difference between flexing your elbow through 14 degrees or 16? But it is also a fact that bowlers are not saints either. When was the last time, for example, that you saw a Harbhajan Singh or Pragyan Ojha or Ajmal bowl in half-sleeves, even in energy-sapping humidity and 40-degree heat? The only possible solution to the chucking issue is to trust the on-field umpire’s judgment. It does not matter whether a bowler chucks during a review process with electrodes all over his body, or during nets. But it does matter when he does it during a game, and that is the only time that should matter. Unless some biomechanics genius figures out a way to display how much a bowler flexes his elbow by on the giant screen after every delivery, the umpire is in the best position to make such a decision. If to his naked eye, it appears that the bowler is straightening his elbow, he should call it. And just as a batsman has to walk off when an umpire raises his finger, the bowler should get back to his mark and try to do better next ball. At least with the naked eye, it seems that the majority of the bowlers around the world have legitimate actions. It is only when variations like the Doosra come into the picture that things start to look a bit dodgy. Therefore, when an umpire calls a bowler for chucking, it needs to be looked at an indictment of that particular delivery, not as the bowler’s action in general. Some might argue that this will end a few careers. I feel the contrary. Unless there are bowlers whose stock delivery itself is a chuck, such an approach would only result in shelving of these dodgy variations. It might look like another nail in the coffin for the hapless clan of bowlers, but then we cannot have variety at the cost of flouting the laws of the game. I see only one difficulty with implementing this approach though. An umpire would have to check the bowler’s front foot for no-balls, then check the bowler’s arm for a throw and last but not the least, look down the pitch at the batsman to make decisions. All in a space of about a second! Doesn’t sound humanly possible, but surely there can be a workaround. Where there’s a will and there will always be a way. The question is, do the powers-that-be have that will to eradicate this menace? (Akash Kaware is an Indian IT professional, who would've been a successful international cricketer if it hadn't been for an annoying tendency to run towards square-leg while facing tennis, rubber or leather cricket balls hurled at anything more than genuine medium-pace! Watching Sachin Tendulkar, VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid convinced him that breaking into the Indian team was not going to happen anytime soon and hence he settled to become an engineer and MBA, who occasionally wrote about cricket. A few months ago, sensing his uselessness and constant use of cricket websites at work, his company banished him to Canada. His hopes of playing international cricket have, thus, been renewed!)