There are two things which stand out from Andrew Ramsay's article in yesterday's Australian. One is the obvious, the ICC are running scared from umpires.
This isn't a licence to throw: May
THE controversial proposed changes to cricket's throwing laws have been forced on the game's hierarchy because of the threat of legal action which could lead to the banning of virtually every international bowler.
The other is something I hadn't previously noticed.
This year, Muralitharan was banned from bowling his doosra after match referee Chris Broad claimed it was delivered with an illegal action. But subsequent testing, which did not conform to the strict protocols outlined in the planned reforms, showed his degree of straightening was on average 14 degrees, which means it would be allowed under the new guidelines.
Yep. That's an AVERAGE of 14 degrees. I'd always assumed the ICC spin doctors had managed to reduce Murali's bend to 14 degrees flat, but it turns out many of his "balls", by definition, must actually be WORSE.
Anyhoo, Tim Lane's article in yesterday's Age ties in neatly with the main thrust of Ramsey's.
Chucking rule divides the game and its fans
If, as Peter Roebuck suggested in The Age yesterday, the International Cricket Council is motivated by the possibility of legal redress in its mooted change to the chucking law, perhaps it should give a moment's thought to three broader aspects of law before acting.
First, an unenforceable law is a bad law. The mooted 15-degree flexion law can't possibly be applied within a game in progress, so it's a bad law. Also, the scrutiny that would be given to problem bowlers could be applied only at cricket's elite level. This would be a law totally deficient in catering for the majority.
Second, if the purpose of law is to strengthen, not divide and weaken the community over which it applies, the ICC is making a grave error. Not only does the proposed change divide the contemporary playing community into tiers, it also has inflamed the broader cricket world. From Boycott, Botham, Bedi, Lillee, Thomson and Warne, legends of the game, to the voices of park cricketers and average cricket watchers that are being heard on talkback radio, this is a source of considerable anger and frustration.
And third, if a good law is one that fits smoothly into the body of law as a whole (cricket law in this case), the proposed change to the law on illegal bowling actions is completely misguided. This change seeks to treat bowling actions quite separately from everything else that happens on the field of play. They aren't and they shouldn't be.
Neat jobs from Anthony on Sri Lanka's non-acceptance of the rules and Wicky who highlights the ICC's reluctance to publish it's findings.
At it's heart, sport is interpretive, judgement calls are regularly made. As a result umpires are, in fact, often going to make mistakes. The upshot is that sport revolves around precisely the opposite; the notion that the umpire is always right. It's the key maxim that provides a common framework which underpins ALL sport otherwise none can function satisfactorily.
Yet the ICC, the guardian's of a sport synonymous with sportsmanship -- Remember: "It's just not cricket." -- have chosen instead to ignore this key principle by giving in to the demands of those who seek to bend the rules and in turn, undermine the umpire's position.
As far as the ICC are concerned, when it comes to judging an LBW, even if they get it wrong, the umpires are always right, yet when it comes to judging a bowler's action, the umpire is NOT always right.
I say, like Lane, if someone wants to challenge over just ONE RUN, bring it on.
By the way, I couldn't log onto the Australian on Friday, things kept locking up, but was anyone else surprised by their chucking headline?
IN attempting to clarify cricket's future in regards to the murky issue of throwing, officials have instead cast a pall over the game's glorious past by claiming all champion bowlers have at times relied on an illegal action.
Comments