Thursday, June 02, 2005
Let The Umpire Decide
Chucking or throwing or generally speaking, illegal bowling action is not some thing new. It was there from almost the beginning of the game, simply because unnatural was the name of the game when it came to both batting and bowling. The batsman was expected to bat in a particular way to enhance his technical expertise. So his sticking to the cricketing style of wielding the willow was insisted upon by the coaches but the authorities were not unduly concerned about how he gathered his runs. But bowling was different.
Deviating from the cricket rule books gave the bowler an undue advantage and that was resisted by the batsmen, the umpires and the authorities. From underarm, bowling action evolved to roundarm. From there, the change to overarm was inevitable and thus quick. Bowlers became more and more powerful as these changes gave their bowling more teeth. The speed of the delivery and the variety that could be brought into the bowling was much greater. So when the bowlers knowingly or inadvertently bent the rules to their advantage to supplement their increased advantage of being able to bowl overarm, made the rule makers sit up and take notice. Hence an array of rules to regulate the bowling action.
You are expected to bring your bowling arm round in a smooth motion so that you don't derive any extra advantage. But over the centuries, bowlers used to deviate from the rules because of the advantage they would get out of it or because they did not know any other way to bowl. The umpires used to interpret the rules in their own way and a certain amount of inconsistency naturally crept in. With the advent of technology, the bowling action could be studied in depth and rules could be applied more consistently.
But there was a danger inherent in such a move. While technology could correct the errors that could creep into the umpire's decisions, it brought in its wake more problems. Now, the rule generally says that a bowler, regardless of his speed, can straighten his bowling arm upto fifteen degrees. Well, as a rule it couldn't be simpler. But how can the umpire put it into practice? How can he mentally measure the degree of straightening? So the umpire is back to square one. He looks at the action of a bowler and instinctively takes a decision. If he thinks a bowler chucks, he then reports it to the authorities. ICC then appoints a specialist to put the bowler to a test with the help of the appropriate technology. The expert then sends his report to ICC. If the bowler is found guilty, he is asked to take corrective action with the help of ICC. If his action is found to be okay, then all that the bowler manages is a temporary reprieve. There is no guarantee that he may not be called again. There is also a possibility, he may bowl differently in match conditions and in the laboratory. How can the technical expert say that, for example in the case of Harbhajan Singh, he does not bowl illegally? All that he can say is that during the limited exposure , he did not find any thing amiss.
Does that give any sort of assurance that Harbhajan will continue to bowl his 'doosra' to every body's satisfaction? Does this conditional reprieve do any justice to the bowler? Will he not always be under the shadow of suspicion, perhaps unjustified? One thing is obvious. Referring the bowler's action to an expert may not solve the problem simply because the urge for that little extra is not there during the trials before the expert. Back on the ground, the bowler may be tempted to resort to his special weapon. Again,can a bowler rest assured that he has been cleared permanently?
You can't run against the tide. You have to squeeze the best of the ever-improving technology. But technology should not be a drag on the smooth functioning of the game. So, till we come up with an innovation that promptly gives a decision on the umpire's request, the best we can do is to treat the umpire's word as final. No amount of technical evidence is going to prevent an umpire from calling a particular bowler. Because that would be a different day, a different situation. The umpire alone can see what is happening out there on the ground. Or do we think that once a bowler has been cleared by a panel of technical experts, an umpire should not touch him? He can, with total freedom, bowl his deadly stuff? Let us be realistic. Let the effective technological changes help us to tackle this problem. Till then, as in LBWs and faint tickles, let our poor umpires be allowed to stake their reputation behind their decisions.
Deviating from the cricket rule books gave the bowler an undue advantage and that was resisted by the batsmen, the umpires and the authorities. From underarm, bowling action evolved to roundarm. From there, the change to overarm was inevitable and thus quick. Bowlers became more and more powerful as these changes gave their bowling more teeth. The speed of the delivery and the variety that could be brought into the bowling was much greater. So when the bowlers knowingly or inadvertently bent the rules to their advantage to supplement their increased advantage of being able to bowl overarm, made the rule makers sit up and take notice. Hence an array of rules to regulate the bowling action.
You are expected to bring your bowling arm round in a smooth motion so that you don't derive any extra advantage. But over the centuries, bowlers used to deviate from the rules because of the advantage they would get out of it or because they did not know any other way to bowl. The umpires used to interpret the rules in their own way and a certain amount of inconsistency naturally crept in. With the advent of technology, the bowling action could be studied in depth and rules could be applied more consistently.
But there was a danger inherent in such a move. While technology could correct the errors that could creep into the umpire's decisions, it brought in its wake more problems. Now, the rule generally says that a bowler, regardless of his speed, can straighten his bowling arm upto fifteen degrees. Well, as a rule it couldn't be simpler. But how can the umpire put it into practice? How can he mentally measure the degree of straightening? So the umpire is back to square one. He looks at the action of a bowler and instinctively takes a decision. If he thinks a bowler chucks, he then reports it to the authorities. ICC then appoints a specialist to put the bowler to a test with the help of the appropriate technology. The expert then sends his report to ICC. If the bowler is found guilty, he is asked to take corrective action with the help of ICC. If his action is found to be okay, then all that the bowler manages is a temporary reprieve. There is no guarantee that he may not be called again. There is also a possibility, he may bowl differently in match conditions and in the laboratory. How can the technical expert say that, for example in the case of Harbhajan Singh, he does not bowl illegally? All that he can say is that during the limited exposure , he did not find any thing amiss.
Does that give any sort of assurance that Harbhajan will continue to bowl his 'doosra' to every body's satisfaction? Does this conditional reprieve do any justice to the bowler? Will he not always be under the shadow of suspicion, perhaps unjustified? One thing is obvious. Referring the bowler's action to an expert may not solve the problem simply because the urge for that little extra is not there during the trials before the expert. Back on the ground, the bowler may be tempted to resort to his special weapon. Again,can a bowler rest assured that he has been cleared permanently?
You can't run against the tide. You have to squeeze the best of the ever-improving technology. But technology should not be a drag on the smooth functioning of the game. So, till we come up with an innovation that promptly gives a decision on the umpire's request, the best we can do is to treat the umpire's word as final. No amount of technical evidence is going to prevent an umpire from calling a particular bowler. Because that would be a different day, a different situation. The umpire alone can see what is happening out there on the ground. Or do we think that once a bowler has been cleared by a panel of technical experts, an umpire should not touch him? He can, with total freedom, bowl his deadly stuff? Let us be realistic. Let the effective technological changes help us to tackle this problem. Till then, as in LBWs and faint tickles, let our poor umpires be allowed to stake their reputation behind their decisions.
