Not another chucker !

[New Judge]

I’ve just watched a few snippets of the first Test between England and Pakistan. England unfortunately lost seven wickets for 55 runs to Pakistan’s “wizard of spin” Saeed Ajmal.

I was never convinced that the action of Sri Lanka’s Muttiah Muralitharan was legal. I am absolutely convinced that Ajmal’s is a “chucker” of the first order. I have looked at a couple of deliveries a few times. His elbow flexes, straightens and flexes again in each of those deliveries. There is no doubt that some of these changes in elbow angle occur after his arm has reached shoulder level.

Why are these blatantly illegal bowlers allowed to continue their trade? Would it not be a good idea to change Law 24 to stipulate that the arm must remain rigid from, say, waist level through to the release of the ball?

[joggerjayne]

I thought this was a thread about polo.

[DTCwordfan]

If the pitch is spinning like this already, I would think that there is one Englishman just itching to have the leather in his fingers tomorrow, I wonder who?

Should be guaranteed mayhem.

[Buenchico]

His action has been tested by Pakistan officials, ICC officials and just about everybody else. His doosra comes close to breaking the rules but doesn't actually do so. I can't see anything wrong with it.

[joggerjayne]

Okay, now i've done a bit of Googling, and I'm with you.

So a cricket bowler isn't allowed to "throw" the ball when he's bowling.

Would video technology work? (to freeze frame the angles in the bowler's arm, like when you get your running motion gait analysed).

[sunny-dave]

It looks a similar situation to Murali - you could measure him until the cows came home under lab conditions & he never went beyond the permitted 'straightening' - but nothing will ever convince me that (under the pressure of a real match situation) certain of his 'special' deliveries were entirely legal.

Interesting that (on TMS at least) there was no mention of this today - even Sir Geoffrey stayed well away from the subject. I know the ICC 'adjusted' the rules to accommodate Murali, but either the evidence of my eyes is wrong (side on in slo-mo HD Ajmal's looks a very dubious action at times) or commentators have been advised not to mention this particular 'elephant in the room'.

[HowardKennitby]

I have not seen this man bowling so can't comment. If it is regarded as legal then every other side will copy it and we are back where we were.

[New Judge]

Thanks for your contributions.

There is a series of photos in today’s Telegraph (unfortunately not on their website so I cannot provide a link) which shows almost beyond doubt that his action is illegal. His elbow is bent to a considerable degree when his hand is slightly behind his head and straightens completely as his delivery is completed.

I really don’t know why the authorities are bending the rules to accommodate bowlers who are clearly breaking them. The fifteen degree allowance already made to accommodate those cheating is ridiculous. Umpires cannot be expected to carry protractors around with them. Although I cannot be sure, I have an idea that some years ago the idea of a bent elbow at any point during the delivery would have been no-balled, end of. I think either that principle should be re-established or throwing should simply be decriminalised entirely. As things stand at present the laws are simply not being applied properly and to adjust them as soon as another bowler’s action is suspect is ridiculous.

[Philtaz]

Odd though how these chuckers only seem to have their action scrutinised when they've had a 'five fer' or better against England!

His arm looks to be no more angled than Murali's was.

[New Judge]

That's not quite correct, philtaz.

I don't think Ajmal has played against England prior to this latest Test, but his action was scrutinised and analysed (and passed "OK") by various cricketing bodies in 2009.

It's a shame I cannot provide a link to the photos in the Telegraph because from them, if he isn't throwing the ball, then my definition of it is long past its sell-by date!

[rowanwitch]

His action may have been(borderline) fine in 2009 but actions can change over time and another review is probably called for as gradual changes will have crept in.

[Philtaz]

But my point is Ajmal has had his action cleared by the ICC and as far as I know England haven't asked to have his action re-scrutinised so I daresay they're happy that it's legal.

As I say, such bowlers only tend to come under the spotlight again as a result of a good bowling performance. Having watched him again as England were skittled out cheaply his action to the naked eye of the layman didn't appear out of the ordinary.

I'll abide by the ICC ruling until he's called for 'chucking' by an umpire.

[New Judge]

The picture in this article:

http://zeenews.india....standable_735959.html

may help to illustrate the problem I have. Although I accept that the camera may cause some exaggeration, the bowlers arm seems to be bent at a very strange angle. I cannot believe that it will remain thus throughout the delivery (which is almost complete) and I have no doubt from this and the deliveries I have seen on TV, that the ball is being thrown.

Why isn’t he called? I’m afraid I share Steve’s suspicions that the authorities will go to great lengths to avoid “offending” some teams. The treatment of umpire Hair (one of the world’s finest umpires) following the ball tampering incident was a disgrace. Hair had already been in hot water for enforcing the laws when he called Muralitharan. The response from the authorities – to change the law to accommodate his illegal action (and his “congenital elbow deformity”). Hair’s reward – to be issued with death threats, found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, and to be told he would not officiate in any matches involving Sri Lanka again. His ruling following the ball tampering was agreed as correct at the time by the other three match officials and later by the ICC and ECB and was in accordance with the laws. But Pakistan had been “offended” by the implication that they had cheated (which they had) so Hair never umpired another top level match.

I’m afraid that a sport that has to employ biomechanical analysis to prove that a player is sticking to the rules (an analysis, of course, which is only valid on the day of examination) needs to look at those rules. A ruling made in a laboratory cannot hold true for an entire match or even a career, but that is what is now expected. Umpires cannot risk offending a player whose action has passed muster some years earlier. As umpire Hair learned to his expense, it is not permitted.

The cricketing authorities need to get a grip as their game is fast becoming disreputable.

[Tim123]

I missed the first test so I've seen his action for the first time today.
He throws the ball, it's as simple as that.