Hiding Behind 15 Degrees

ESPNCricinfo published a list of Frequently Asked Questions about illegal bowling actions the other day. Question 1, was as follows:

What is an illegal bowling action?
An illegal bowling action is one in which the bowler's 'elbow extension' exceeds 15 degrees while he is in his delivery stride. The ICC set the 15-degree limit for all bowlers in November 2004.

This is wrong. But perhaps, it is not Cricinfo's fault. The ICC has been saying this for 10 years now. It all goes back to a recommendation by a sub-committee constituted by the then chair of the ICC's Cricket Committee, Sunil Gavaskar. At the time, Sunil Gavaskar said that the committee's decision was a cricketing decision backed by scientific study. When the new rules were formed, David Richardson, then ICC's General Manager (Cricket), said that "[i]t is important that umpires and referees retain the responsibility of reporting doubtful actions as they are the people who see most cricket and work with players around the world. They will not be asked to judge the degree of straightening; that will be determined by scientific laboratory analysis to establish if the action complies with the new regulations."

The more I think about this, the more interesting the distance between what the ICC's rules say and what the ICC says becomes. They invented the 'suspect action' as distinct from the 'illegal action' to allow umpires to simply report a bowler for review. But they never bothered to amend Law 24.

Law 24.2 and 24.3 deal with 'fair delivery' with respect to the arm. The first line of Law 24.2 states that

For a delivery to be fair in respect of the arm the ball must not be thrown. See 3 below

The rest of 24.2 specific what an umpire must do if "in the opinion of either umpire, the ball has been thrown". What must an umpire do? An umpire "shall call and signal No ball and, when the ball is dead, inform the other umpire of the reason for the call." Following this, the umpire should communicate the reason for the no-ball call to the other umpire and the fielding captain and given the bowler a warning. Subsequently, if either umpire judges that a delivery has been thrown, then a second and final warning is issued. If a further delivery is judged to be thrown, the bowler is suspended for the remainder of the innings. Finally, the umpires have to report the occurrence to the ICC.

This is what the umpires should do if they think the delivery has been thrown. When is a delivery thrown? This is specified in Law 24.3.

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

After the ICC's decision in 2004, where does all this stand? The answer is astounding. It goes nowhere. It remains in the ICC's playing conditions. In fact, it applies to this day. As the first line in the currently applicable Test Match playing conditions specifies, these playing conditions "are applicable to all Test Matches from 1st October 2013 and supersede the previous version dated 30 April 2013. Included in this version are amendments to clauses 1.3, 2.2.2, 17.1, 17.2, 19.3, 23.1, 42.1, 42.1.1, Appendices 2, 4 and new clauses 24.2 and 42.1.2."

The second sentence goes on to specify the following: Except as varied hereunder, the Laws of Cricket (2000 Code - 5th Edition 2013) shall apply. 

This is the Law quoted above. What do the playing conditions say about Law 24? On page 3.19,

Law 24 shall apply subject to the following:
24.1 Law 24.1 - Mode of delivery
Law 24.1 (b) shall be replaced by the following:  The bowler may not deliver the ball underarm. If a bowler bowls a ball underarm the umpire shall call and signal no ball, and the ball is to be re-bowled overarm.
24.2 Fair Delivery - the feet
Law 24.5 shall apply, subject to the final paragraph being replaced by the following:
If the bowler’s end umpire is satisfied that any of these three conditions have not been met, he shall all and signal No ball.

The rules which govern Test Cricket today according to the game's governing body modify 24.1(b) and 24.5 of Law 24. The ICC adopts the rest of the Law, including 24.2 and 24.3 as it is.

It follows, that if umpires think a particular delivery has been thrown, they have to call it a no ball. To do otherwise is unfair to the batsman. It is also unfair to other bowlers on both sides who bowl with actions which do not attract the umpire's adverse attention. Yet, we have seen a situation with Saeed Ajmal in which he was reported at the end of the Galle Test and went on to bowl 79 overs at SSC without being called even once!

Umpires seem to have decided that since they cannot be certain that the calculated flex for an action is 15 degrees simply by looking at it, they should ignore Law 24 and simply report a bowler if they judge the bowling action is illegal. Does the 15 degree rule justify the choice that umpires have made? It unequivocally doesn't, since the 15 degree threshold exists because it is beyond this point that straightening (or flex) is evident to the naked eye. This, as Sunil Gavaskar explained, is the basis of judging the legality of an action.

The ICC's own rules (its adoption of Laws and its review process) suggest Law 24 is supposed to be applied to suspect actions, not illegal actions. Yet, in practice, the Law has not been applied at all. It is not a surprise then that Geoff Allardice basically admitted that match officials had been too lax about bowling actions.

I take umpires to be experts. They are without any doubt, far better at making decisions than you and me, the players, journalists or commentators. Why then have they been so timid about Law 24? Is this episode not symptomatic of the extreme stress the institution of umpiring exists under from the commentariat? Ideally, if Umpires called no-balls for throwing, it would deter selectors from picking bowlers whose actions are suspect. There is enough expertise in the game that an action like Ajmals or Senanayake's or Botha's would be universally considered doubtful. If the selectors knew this was going to be a problem they would hesitate to pick such bowlers. The result would be that you would have fewer bowlers of this type in cricket.

Instead what we have is several partisan entities ruling the roost. Commentators have an obsessive need for sensation and controversy and deal in hyperbole. "Better to be wrong than boring" as one commentator put it. Players are the other major interest group here. With players it cuts both ways. If a bowler is ineffective, no one minds the illegality of the action too much. The moment a bowler starts hurting opponents, his action becomes a problem. It also becomes a valuable asset (to be protected at all costs) for his teammates.

The whole point of having umpires is to ensure that the game is run by individuals who are impervious to such (ultimately petty) momentary interests. Yet, in the last 10 years, cricket has failed its umpires. This is clear from the fact that (as the ICC General Manager for Cricket effectively admitted) umpires have simply ignored Law 24.

The findings about throwing invite reflection from commentators, not just from coaches. Will this happen? I think we know the answer to that.