MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

Where do you reside? USA UK UAE Singapore Hong kong Australia Canada North America South America Europe Africa Bahrain Kuwait Qatar Philippines Indonesia Asia New Zealand

Kya chuckkar hai?!

Cricket and controversy, these days, appear to be synonymous.

And the latest dust, in the global cricketing arena, centres around the action of Indian off spinner Rajesh Chauhan -- who, as per International Cricket Conference directive, has been dropped from the national side on the grounds that his bowling action is dubious.

There is a bit of interesting background to the latest development. The ICC, last year, decided to do something, once for all, to clean up one of cricket's most enduring problems -- namely, chucking.

It was felt that in recent years, there has been an alarming increase in the number of bowlers with suspect actions. Several of them happen to be off spinners, perhaps because the art of off spin lends itself to the strategically bent arm and the cocked wrist, especially when looking for extra turn or bounce. It must be said, however, that a few fast bowlers are also suspected of "chucking" the odd one to gain pace and bounce.

To remedy the situation, the ICC put together a "throwing committee" comprising eminent Test cricketers from all nine nations (India being represented by Kapil Dev). Meanwhile, video footage was collected of one dozen bowlers whose actions were deemed suspect.

Such footage was collected, under the aegis of ICC match referee Bobby Simpson, on Rajesh Chauhan, as also on Lankan spinners Kumara Dharmasena, Muthaiah Muralitharan and Jayanta Silva, during the recent three-Test series on Indian soil.

From this follows the latest ICC directive to the BCCI. We quote: "After reviewing the video footage, on the evidence available, the panel were unanimous in their view that Rajesh Chauhan has a problem with his bowling action. In their opinion, there is a definite straightening of the arm prior to the delivery, which constitutes a thre under Note (a) of Law 24 of the Laws of Cricket.

"The panel requests remedial work to be undertaken as soon as possible to help the player make necessary adjustments to his action, so that it complies with the law.

"Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the ICC to appoint a respected and qualified off spinner-coach to work with Chauhan on his action. I hope your Board agrees to this proposal so that necessary arrangements can be made. It may involve Chauhan travelling overseas to work with the coach. The ICC will be responsible for the coach's fees only.

"A copy of the videotape is enclosed. This should be reviewed by your coaching staff in consultation with Chauhan.

"On the basis that improvement is made to his action to eliminate the straightening of his arm in delivery rotation, he should be videotaped by your Board in the nets and in domestic cricket. The camera angles should be from the front, behind and square leg. Please make available a copy of the videotape for further viewing by the panel.

"In the meantime, his continued selection in international cricket runs the risk of him being no-balled for throwing. The panel would prefer that he not be selected until remedial work has been successfully completed, but acknowledge that selection is a matter for your Board to decide."

The letter is signed Dave Richards, chief executive, ICC.

The BCCI promptly instructed the national selectors to drop Chauhan, and indicated that the off spinner will be sent to work with whichever coach is designated by the ICC. The Board will, indicated secretary J Y Lele, bear the costs of such remedial action.

However, that is hardly the point. Already into his 30s, Chauhan -- who bowled brilliantly against the visiting Sri Lankans during the recent home series and was expected to provide a cutting edge to India's spin attack against the Australians expected here in February -- is pretty much faced with the abrupt termination of his international career. Because as per the directive, Chauhan first has to work with the nominated coach, then he has to bowl again, under scrutiny of the cameras, both in the nets and in domestic competition, the relevant tapes have to be scrutinised again by the experts who will then decide whether to pass his action... all of which will entail that Chauhan definitely misses the rest of the current season.

Interestingly, ICC president Jagmohan Dalmiya has indicated that the directive is absolutely binding on the Board.

Jagmohan Dalmiya would say that. He is president of the ICC and, except when it concerns such matters as control of the BCCI, he prefers to toe the line of the global body, even to the detriement of Indian cricket and cricketers. However, the question is, just what is Dalmiya's locus standi, here? As ICC president, he is not supposed to interfere in the internal affairs of any country including his own -- so where does Dalmiya get off, telling the BCCI what to do?

Again, is Dalmiya's stand that the directive is binding, strictly speaking, true?

No. What the Board, if it was concerned with standing up for the rights of one of its players, could -- and, in the opinion of several luminaries including Kapil Dev, Ravi Shastri and famed off spinner E A S Prasanna -- should have done was to pick Chauhan, and leave the onus on the umpires concerned to call him.

In this context, it should be borne in mind that Chauhan has bowled before almost all the umpires on the ICC panel, none of whom have thus far found reason to call him for "chucking".

The exact wording of the law concerned is interesting: "A ball shall be deemed to have been thrown if, in the opinion of either umpire, the process of straightening the bowling arm, whether it be partial or complete, takes place during the part of the delivery swing which directly preceedes the ball leaving the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from the use of the wrist in the delivery swing."

That is the legal, laid down, definition of a "throw" -- laid down, it must be pointed out, by the ICC itself. The key, when reading the above, is ...in the opinion of either umpire....

Where, in the above -- and remember, the Laws of Cricket are framed, and upheld, by the ICC -- does it say "in the opinion of the ICC panel"? Where, in its own rule book, does the ICC have the authority to do what it has just done?

On a related line -- all the members of the "throwing committee" are former players. But not one of them is an umpire. And it is the umpires who have been entrusted, by the ICC itself, with the conduct of the game, and with ensuring that the laws are followed.

Kapil Dev (who is a member of the ICC's own throwing committee -- because he is hails from the same country as Chauhan, Kapil was not allowed to sit in on the deliberations concerning the Indian offspinner) is very forthright in his view on the matter. "Is the ICC higher than the umpires? Does the ICC panel know more than the umpires?" he demands.

When it was pointed out that Bobby Simpson, as ICC match referee, was the person who had reported Chauhan's action to the ICC< Kapil shot back: "Who the hell is Simpson? Does he know more about the game than the umpires? I think the ICC is going too far, and I am sure the advise is not binding on the Indian board. As long as he is not pronounced guilty, Chauhan cannot, and should not, be punished."

The ICC, of course, has its own explanation for the move. Richards suggests that though the umpires do have the power to call a bowler for chucking, they have become reluctant to enforce it because, when they have done so, they have received little support from their respective boards.

Say what? Why does an umpire, enforcing a law of the game, need the support of the board? On the field, he is the final arbiter. Just what has board support got to do with his decisions? Does the umpire need the board's backing to call a no-ball, which is an infringement of the rules regarding bowling? To call a wide? Why then does "board support" become a factor when calling for chucking, considering that it is merely one more infringement of the law regarding bowling?

Again. In recent times, umpires ranging from Ian Robinson to Darrell Hair have called bowlers for chucking. And? Were they penalised by someone for it? Did their respective boards let them down? Is there one single instance in the history of cricket that the ICC can cite, of action taken against an umpire who called a bowler for chucking? No. Then on what does the ICC base its argument that umpires are not calling bowlers because they are scared?

There is a related issue, to underline which, we narrate a particular incident. Once, dressed rather grungily, I was travelling home in the first class compartment of a suburban local. A ticket examiner entered the compartment and, ignoring the 20 or so other passengers therein, came straight to me to demand that I show him my pass. I refused. My argument was, "There are 20 people inside this compartment, why did you ask only me? Because of the way I am dressed? I don't need a suit to sit in a first class compartment, all I need is a valid ticket -- you go check the passes of the others, then come to me and I'll show you mine!"

Same difference. The ICC says this move is to clean up cricket. We applaud. However, what is the basis on which the ICC selected Chauhan, Muralitharan, Dharmasena and Jayanta Silva, alone, for operation cleanup? Are we to understand that bowlers in England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Zimbabwe and the West Indies (Pakistan, of course, tampers with the ball, according to the high and the mighty) are ipso facto above suspicion?

Are we talking discrimination, here?

Further. Where did the ICC get this bee in its collective bonnet about off spinners? Is it the contention of the wise men who govern global cricket that pace bowlers can't, and don't, chuck? Or medium pacers? How many seamers have come under scrutiny of this much hyped clean-up panel?

If the ICC was intent on cleaning up the game, it could have called for video footage of all practising bowlers, irrespective of type, had the panel scrutinise the actions, and then take it from there. Or is the ICC keen merely on cleaning up the game in the sub-continent? Gee, thanks bunches!

The question remains, what could the BCCI do? Simple. Pick Chauhan, and play him. That puts the onus on the umpires to call him. Remember, every single ball being bowled these days in international cricket is being videotaped. If an umpire does call Chauhan, the ball in question can be scrutinised by an expert panel to deem if indeed the bowler did chuck on that occasion. And if the call is wrong, the umpire in question should be sued -- it pays to remember that we are talking, here, of the career of a cricketer, and no individual or body has the right to abruptly terminate a career under a controversial cloud.

The basic law of jurisprudence holds good here, as well. You are innocent until proved guilty. What proof has the ICC presented? None -- merely an in-camera session by an appointed panel (what exactly are the qualifications of the players comprising it? As pointed out before, not one of them is an umpire). The last time the ICC cast doubt on Chauhan's action, it was backed up by videotapes that, when viewed by the likes of Gavaskar and Kapil Dev, proved to be no evidence at all -- in other words, the tapes did not back up the allegation. On that occasion, Chauhan lost a year. Again, we have the allegation. Again, we have some tapes -- but the ICC doesn't ask anyone to evaluate it, merely says, here you go, here are the tapes, we suggest you don't bowl the boy!

Like the saying goes, who died and made them god?

The Sri Lankan board, made of sterner stuff, got Muralitharan off the hook in this fashion. When he was called, they filmed him from all angles and though the then coach, Dave Whatmore, said that the action looked suspicious from some angles, he and a plethora of experts, all of Sri Lankan origin, went on record to state that Muralitharan had a defect in his bowling arm which caused the unnatural bend. The board then, without waiting for the ICC's reaction, went ahead and picked Muralitharan to play in the 1996 World Cup, of all places, openly declaring that if any umpire called him, the video of the delivery would be closely scrutinised and, if need be, the board would initiate legal action against the umpire concerned, and against the ICC. The ICC, unable to put up, was forced to shut up.

The Indian board should play Chauhan. The board will not play Chauhan. Because the Board is comprised of a president who would rather be seen but not heard; a secretary who, well, never mind... and an extra-constitutional authority in Jagmohan Dalmiya. Above all, the board's attitude is characterised by collective pusillanimity.

To stand up for one's own takes men of spirit, of integrity, of stature --- qualities that the Leles of this world are unaware of, even by hearsay.

Follows, for the record, instances when a player has been called for "chucking", in both forms of the game:

Sr.No	Season	Venue	Player	Particulars
1	1960	Lord's	G M Griffin (SA)	Griffin will remember this Test match against England not only because he became the first South African player to take a hat-trick, but also because he was the first-ever player to be called 11 times -- by umpire F.S.Lee -- for throwing. He played no further Test cricket, did not bowl again on the tour, and retired after a further three seasons in South African first-class cricket.
2	1963-64	Brisbane	I.Meckiff (Aust)	Left-arm fast opening bowler Ian Meckiff announced his retirement from all classes of cricket after being no-balled for throwing four times in his only over against South Africa. He was called by home umpire Colin Egar.
3	1967-68	Christchurch	Abid Ali (Ind)	During India's tour of New Zealand, there was a major incident involving the suspect action of home team fast bowler Gary Bartlett, who was never, however, "called". To register their protest, India's slow medium pacer Abid Ali deliberately threw a ball and was duly no-balled by umpire Fred Goodall.
4	1986	Nottingham	D I Gower (Eng.)	David Gower became the first England bowler to be "called". Gower jocularly threw the last ball of the match, which ended in victory for New Zealand by an eight-wicket margin.
5	1994-95	Harare	H K Olongo (Zimb)	Henry Olongo was no-balled for throwing by umpire Ian Robinson --the first recognised bowler to be called in a Test since Ian Meckiff.
6	1995-96	Melbourne	M Muralitharan (SL)	The drama began on the first afternoon of the game, when umpire Darrell Hair calling Muralitharan seven times in three overs for throwing. Unusually, he made his judgement from the bowler's end. The bowler switched ends and bowled until tea on the second day.
7	1995-96	Brisbane	M Muralitharan (SL)	Muralitharan was no-balled repeatedly by umpire R A Emerson, standing in his first international, for throwing. The bowler resorted to leg-spin; but he was still no-balled. Acting captain Aravinda D'Silva seemed prepared to prolong the agony, until frantic signals from the dressing-room prompted the bowler's removal.

NOTE:The last-mentioned incident occurred in the one-dayer, while all others were registered in Test cricket.

Related Story:
ICC will help correct Chauhan, Dharmasena action: Dalmiya