Should chucking be allowed in cricket?

Saeed Ajmal

Bowling in cricket has seen tremendous changes: from rolling the ball along the turf with an under-arm action to adopting a round-arm action that later led to higher-arm actions. Cricket’s attitude towards bowling has seen constant changes, as well. Change in technologies have brought about changes in rules regarding bowling actions. When a lady found her skirt obstructing under-arm bowlings, round-arm bowling was born. Later, over-arm/higher-arm bowling was legalised in 1864.

Since then, rules regarding the flexing of arm have gone sundry changes. It is a no-brainer to state that there has been a lot of misconceptions about the biomechanics associated with bowling. The rules were inconsistent and were not thorough, paving the way for a number of tweaks. Every time some light was shedded on a new finding, the International Cricket Council (ICC) shredded its figments and modified the law.

Before 1990s, bowlers were expected to bowl with an absolutely straight arm. “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,” says the initial law.

However, a testing conducted in the 1990s in England laid the truth bare that practically all bowlers flexed and extended their arms when the arm was rotated around the shoulder. The ICC responded with a set of tired tolerance thresholds for the amount of elbow flexion. According to it, fast bowlers could straighten their arm by 10 degrees, while 7.5 degrees was assigned for medium pacers and 5 degrees for spin bowlers. To what extent Andrew Symonds was allowed to flex still perplexes me, though. What drew the line between a medium pacer and a fast bowler still has many cricket fans look up at the heavens and ponder.

A study conducted during the 2004 Champions Trophy saw only Ramnaresh Sarwan, a part-time leggie, bowl within the then stipulated law. With the much improved measurement technology, the ICC once again amended the rules, by raising the tolerance threshold to 15 degrees for bowlers of all type.

Since last November, there has been a spree of reporting bowlers, especially off-spinners. Shane Shilingford, Kane WIlliamson, Saeed Ajmal. Sachithra Senanyake, Sohag Gazi and, lately, Prosper Utseya have all been reported for a suspect action. Of all specialist off-spinners playing the game currently, only Ravichandran Ashwin, Sunil Narine, Nathan McCullum and Nathan Lyon have not been reported, yet.

It is understood that even though the art of off-spin is easy to learn, it is difficult to execute cleanly. An off-break bowler’s quiver is very small, generally containing an off-break and an arm-ball. Unlike leg-breaks. off-breaks do not spin much. Hence, to grapple batting, which has become ridiculously easy, off-spinners have adopted several variations that include deliveries like the carrom ball and the doosra. Off-spinners have also started using their elbows craftily to get ample rip off the turf. Unlike leg-spinners, off-spinners depend a lot on elbow extension.

The need to extend the elbow to be a successful off-spinner has made several players inadvertently breach the tolerance threshold level. Senanayake’s remedial works found out that the need to make prompt changes in the length of deliveries during Powerplays made him exceed the limits. In the case of doosra bowlers, elbow extension becomes paramount to achieve the desired result.

An important question comes to my mind at this juncture. With the testing labs situated only in limited countries, how does an ordinary bowler know if he is breaching the threshold level? Forget the bowler; how does the umpire know whether a bowler is flexing his elbow by 14 degrees or 16 degrees. Every bowler would inevitably exceed the limit at least once in their spell. If the umpire picks it and then reports him, then the bowler will have to replicate the very same action in the biomechanic labs, which would earn the bowler a temporary ban. If the bowler is fortunate to be overlooked, then he can persist.

There is inconsistency in the manner in which the procedure of reporting a bowler functions. How can a naked human eye measure elbow flexion? What if a bowler who chucks manages to travel under the radar?

The ICC has always managed to find errors in the measurement methodologies. Different studies have revealed different results: Once, no elbow flexion was allowed; later, the ICC, with a new technology, found that most bowlers’ chuck. Then the laws were changed. What about the players who were victimised by the previous laws, though? If a good number of bowlers were let off with chucking before 90s, then weren’t those who were banned for chucking according to the new rules, victims?

Why does the ICC request the testings to be done in Cardiff and not in Perth? Were the testings in Perth not reliable? If so, how can the findings in Cardiff be not wrong?

The science behind the bio-mechanics of bowling is convoluted. Congenital deformities and hyper extensions have exacerbated the problems. Muttiah Muralitharan’s naturally bent arm and Shoaib Akthar’s negative flexing have done serious damage to the reputation of these bowlers due to the lack of comprehensiveness in the law. The technology is still evolving. It is incomplete and imperfect. Using such technology can jeopardize many bowlers’ careers.

The technology to understand bowling is very limited. To eliminate all qualms and to streamline, the system ICC should go is binary: either allow elbow extension or ban it completely. Past studies have shown bowling with a straight arm is implausible. So, is making chucking legal the only option? Well, it can be considered.

This article has been contributed by a member of the SK Featured Bloggers Club. It was originally published on the blog 'The Arm Chair Critic' here.