garage flower
State Vice-Captain
The most recent research suggests that establishing “uniform, verifiable criteria of what constitutes a throw” is impossible because the very definition of “throwing” in cricket needs to be revised.SJS said:Whether anyone likes it or not, this new report has totally exposed the hollowness of earlier claims.
I am all for a uniform, verifiable (preferably on the field of play) criteria of what constitutes a throw. But you cant shift goal posts depending upon who or how many people are affected ?
The 5, 7.5, 10 15% criteria for different types of bowling was totally arbitrary and ridiculous. All it achieved was to disallow one particular type of bowling from Murali's armoury, nothing more. But we all pretended that it was fair and scietific and therefore objective. If anything, some felt that it should be tighter, basically because it allowed Murali to still bowl other deliveries which were also bowled with a bent elbow.
Now when they find others are also transgressing this 'arbitrary' limit fixed, they flex it to 'accomodate' them. Why ? If they can show this flexibility for a few why shouldnt it be shown for one Murali. Where is the logic that a 'throw' is not a 'throw' if a larger number of people employ it ?
Either they were wrong then in banning the doosra or they are wrong now in allowing it.Whcichever is true does no credit to ICC or the 'experts' involved in the decision making. I suspect it is worse than being wrong. It doesnt matter to ICC any more whether what they hand out is right or wrong, all that matters is, what is more 'convinient' and more politically palatable !!
The limits will, as you point out, always be arbitrary, but at least now there is one limit for all bowlers and it is based on what appears to be a comprehensive piece of scientific research.
The next big hoo-hah will occur when a new bowling sensation arrives on the scene with a dodgy-looking action that is found to straighten by 16 degrees!
I have some sympathy for the ICC on this issue. Perhaps there should be no “legal limit” and it should be left to umpires to refer any actions or individual deliveries they are concerned about. Tests could be performed and an objective view on the legality taken, based primarily on the extent to which the action in question straightens compared to other bowlers.