'We're not stretching the law for fast bowlers'
David Richardson, the general manager, cricket, of the ICC, presents the rationale for the graded tolerance levels for bowling actions
19-Jun-2004
David Richardson, the general manager, cricket, of the ICC, presents the rationale for the graded tolerance levels for bowling actions. This email interview, which was done by Mukul Kesavan, appeared in the June edition of Wisden Asia Cricket.
 |
|
Were the tolerance limits (of five degrees for slow/spin bowlers, 7.5 for medium-pacers and 10 for fast bowlers) set as a result of the study performed on fast-bowling actions?
The tolerance levels were set based on a number of studies done on fast, fast-medium, slow, and spin bowlers, not only on fast bowlers. These studies were carried out prior to the introduction of the revised ICC regulations in October 2002 and should not be confused with the subsequent research carried out by Cricket Australia on international fast bowlers.
The tolerance levels were set based on a number of studies done on fast, fast-medium, slow, and spin bowlers, not only on fast bowlers. These studies were carried out prior to the introduction of the revised ICC regulations in October 2002 and should not be confused with the subsequent research carried out by Cricket Australia on international fast bowlers.
How was this research conducted? Was it from television footage, were the bowlers tested in match conditions, or were they tested, like Murali by Bruce Elliot, in special sessions?
The studies were done in special/net conditions.
The studies were done in special/net conditions.
Is it possible to make this technology available to match referees and umpires while they are contemplating reporting a bowler for a suspect action?
No. The 3D analysis as required in the ICC protocols cannot be done using television footage only. It is also very important to remember that the levels of tolerance only come into consideration in the biomechanical analysis of the action. They are not intended to be taken into consideration by the umpires or the referee in their deliberations as to whether a particular bowler should be reported for a suspect action or not. The only factor which they are asked to take into account is whether, in their opinion, there is a "straightening of the arm". Whether such straightening is within the levels of tolerance is not for them to decide, and the ICC obviously does not expect them to make such a judgement. The starting point for the match officials is whether the action appears suspect when viewed live or at normal speed. The match officials can then use slow motion replays to confirm or allay their suspicions. Remember also that when a match official reports a bowler he is in effect saying he suspects that the action may be illegal. Biomechanical analysis is then done to determine whether the action is legal or not.
No. The 3D analysis as required in the ICC protocols cannot be done using television footage only. It is also very important to remember that the levels of tolerance only come into consideration in the biomechanical analysis of the action. They are not intended to be taken into consideration by the umpires or the referee in their deliberations as to whether a particular bowler should be reported for a suspect action or not. The only factor which they are asked to take into account is whether, in their opinion, there is a "straightening of the arm". Whether such straightening is within the levels of tolerance is not for them to decide, and the ICC obviously does not expect them to make such a judgement. The starting point for the match officials is whether the action appears suspect when viewed live or at normal speed. The match officials can then use slow motion replays to confirm or allay their suspicions. Remember also that when a match official reports a bowler he is in effect saying he suspects that the action may be illegal. Biomechanical analysis is then done to determine whether the action is legal or not.
Was the graded nature of the limits based on the assumption that the straightening that occurred was involuntary? That it was an unintended consequence of bowling at a certain speed?
No, the basis of the graded nature is that the greater the speed of delivery, the more the stress/load that is experienced by the human body. In other words, the levels of tolerance take into account the mechanics of the human body. It is important to differentiate between a straightening of the arm as a factor of the mechanical forces that come into play on the human body and a straightening of the arm as a factor of the player's action. It is not the intention to allow someone to throw rather than bowl.
No, the basis of the graded nature is that the greater the speed of delivery, the more the stress/load that is experienced by the human body. In other words, the levels of tolerance take into account the mechanics of the human body. It is important to differentiate between a straightening of the arm as a factor of the mechanical forces that come into play on the human body and a straightening of the arm as a factor of the player's action. It is not the intention to allow someone to throw rather than bowl.
Did the ICC consider the possibility that fast bowlers were straightening their arms deliberately to achieve greater pace?
Yes.
Yes.
Would it not be possible to argue that the ICC was effectively conceding that the faster you bowled, the more flagrantly you could `chuck'?
Absolutely not. The levels of tolerance are set so as to accommodate a degree of straightening which might occur due to the stresses placed on the body during delivery. Even a solid metal bar if rotated fast enough will display a degree of movement.
Absolutely not. The levels of tolerance are set so as to accommodate a degree of straightening which might occur due to the stresses placed on the body during delivery. Even a solid metal bar if rotated fast enough will display a degree of movement.
Did the ICC ignore the issue of intention completely while framing tolerance limits? And if so, were the tolerance limits simply a way of keeping fast bowlers legitimate, given the results of the study?
Not at all. The levels of tolerance were not set to accommodate fast bowlers who `threw'. In the study the bowlers who had been called or reported typically showed between 15 and 20 degrees of straightening - some even as high as 30. If the intention was to accommodate these bowlers then the levels of tolerance would have been set a lot higher.
Not at all. The levels of tolerance were not set to accommodate fast bowlers who `threw'. In the study the bowlers who had been called or reported typically showed between 15 and 20 degrees of straightening - some even as high as 30. If the intention was to accommodate these bowlers then the levels of tolerance would have been set a lot higher.
Were there any fast or fast-medium bowlers tested by the study who didn't straighten their arms at all?
Yes. In the main study of fast bowlers, bowlers with no prior record of having suspect actions, all had demonstrated values below 10 degrees. The highest was nine degrees and the lowest zero. The mean was 5.8 degrees. The study covered bowlers from a variety of levels and speeds.
Yes. In the main study of fast bowlers, bowlers with no prior record of having suspect actions, all had demonstrated values below 10 degrees. The highest was nine degrees and the lowest zero. The mean was 5.8 degrees. The study covered bowlers from a variety of levels and speeds.
Given that spinners hadn't been studied, why did the ICC set a tolerance limit for them at all? And in the absence of a study what were the assumptions the ICC used to determine a provisional limit of five degrees?
Spinners have been studied. The study showed that the stresses or forces on the body of the spinner were not sufficient to warrant any degree of straightening. Allowing for two to three degrees of experimental error, a five-degree tolerance was determined as the maximum which should reasonably be permitted for a spinner/slow bowler.
Spinners have been studied. The study showed that the stresses or forces on the body of the spinner were not sufficient to warrant any degree of straightening. Allowing for two to three degrees of experimental error, a five-degree tolerance was determined as the maximum which should reasonably be permitted for a spinner/slow bowler.
|
|
|
How does the ICC plan to apply sanctions against Muttiah Muralitharan (or indeed any spinner), should he be reported again for his doosra, in the absence of data on spinners?
The ICC does have a sound scientific base on which to make assessments of spinners. If Muralitharan is reported again, he will be dealt with according to the ICC rules and regulations.
The ICC does have a sound scientific base on which to make assessments of spinners. If Muralitharan is reported again, he will be dealt with according to the ICC rules and regulations.
Isn't the very notion of differential limits inherently contrary to both the idea of a single definition for a legitimate delivery and the idea of a level playing field for all bowlers?
No, not if the basis for the differential limits is the principle that the stresses and forces on the body vary according to the speed of the bowler.
No, not if the basis for the differential limits is the principle that the stresses and forces on the body vary according to the speed of the bowler.
If some fast bowlers can bowl without bending their arm more than three or four degrees, why should the ICC not demand that every pace bowler come in at or under this minimum deviation, even if it means that he cuts down on speed?
Good question, but you have to draw the line somewhere. The bottom line is that in the case of fast bowlers anything under 10 would not be noticeable to the naked eye.
Good question, but you have to draw the line somewhere. The bottom line is that in the case of fast bowlers anything under 10 would not be noticeable to the naked eye.
Shouldn't the ICC be more concerned about making fast bowlers conform to the
law rather than stretching the law to fit fast bowlers?
The ICC is not stretching the law to accommodate fast bowers, it is only recognising that research has shown that the stresses placed on the body of a fast bowler reasonably call for a certain level of tolerance. The same criterion has been used to determine an appropriate level for spin bowlers.
The ICC is not stretching the law to accommodate fast bowers, it is only recognising that research has shown that the stresses placed on the body of a fast bowler reasonably call for a certain level of tolerance. The same criterion has been used to determine an appropriate level for spin bowlers.
The tolerance levels have been set to take into account biomechanical principles and the anatomical make-up of the human body. As recently as last September, at its meeting of Chief Executive Officers in India, the ICC reviewed these levels and all countries were in agreement that the current standards should remain in place. It is these universally agreed levels of tolerance that were applied in the four cases already dealt with over the past 12 months, and it is these levels that will continue to be applied to evaluate any bowler who is reported with a potentially flawed action.
Having said all that, the ICC has acknowledged the need for further research on the matter, and in particular on the actions of spin bowlers. There has been some media speculation that because the ICC will be conducting further research into the actions of spinners, the current levels of tolerance should not be applied in the Muralitharan case. Such a suggestion lacks common sense. If, at some yet to be determined point in the future and as a result of a proper research programme, there is evidence to support a change to the levels of tolerance, then that will be considered.
Click here for highlights of the latest issue of Wisden Asia Cricket.
To subscribe to the magazine, Click here.
To subscribe to the magazine, Click here.