Tony Becca - FROM THE BOUNDARY THE LATE Sir Neville Cardus, a most celebrated cricket writer, once said, sport, particularly cricket, mirrors society and if that is so, remembering that progress involves change, then like societies anywhere, change in cricket is unavoidable.
However, it is not every change that is good. Whereas some suggest progress, others do not. Instead of making things better, some changes make things worse than they were before and that could well be the case if the change being contemplated, the law dealing with a bowler's action, is accepted.
According to Law 24, Section 3, a ball is fairly delivered 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.
That is what it has been for many, many years - at least until two years ago when fast bowlers were allowed a tolerance level of 10 degrees, medium-pacers 71/2, and spin bowlers five.
SPECIALISTS
With so many bowlers accused of throwing in recent times, the ICC put together a team of former international cricketers and human movement specialists to look at the problem. After doing so at a meeting in Dubai, the team made a recommendation to the ICC - a recommendation that has found favour with the ICC and which will be discussed by the 10 Test-playing countries in February.
The recommendation is that the tolerance level be 15 degrees for all bowlers. In other words, if the recommendation is accepted there will not only be no distinction between those who bowl fast, those who bowl slow and those in between, but also that bowlers, all of them, will be able to bend their elbows a bit more.
As usual, there are those for and those against.
According to those in favour, there are many good reasons for the change. One reason is that some bowlers are not as pure as the naked eye would suggest. When viewed by the camera, some 90 per cent off all bowlers straighten their elbows at various degrees and if that is the case why penalise some and not others? Why not make it easier on the umpires?
Another reason, one put forward by Australian coach John Buchanan, is that the change will be good for the game - for the simple reason that bowlers will be able to increase their variety and in order to succeed against them, batsmen will have to improve their skills.
GOOD REASONS
However, according to those against, there are some good reasons why there should not be a change.
One reason is that the umpire is looking at the bowler with his naked eye and he should determine a flaw in the bowler's action based on what the law says and on what he sees.
Another reason is that the umpire will still not be able to fulfil his obligation according to the law. Instead of calling no-ball, the umpire will still have to report his suspicion and that means that a bowler who dismisses a batsman with an illegal delivery will still get away with it - at least until the camera proves him guilty.
History suggests that whenever you set tolerance levels people try to get as close as possible to the limit rather than stay clean and still another reason coming from those against is the possibility that by tolerating chuckers, allowing them to perform before youngsters, the next generation of bowlers will all be chuckers.
Progress involves change but not every change is progress and when they meet in February the Test-playing countries should resist this change in the interest of the game.
THINGS COULD BE WORSE
The reason for any change should be to improve things and if the idea of this change is to get rid of chuckers, chances are it will not. On the contrary, it could make things worse and it could do so because with all the good intentions, it will be difficult to control the level of tolerance.
It is human nature that the more one gets, the more one wants and just as it has moved from no tolerance to a tolerance of 10, 7 1/2 and five per cent, if this new tolerance level is accepted, it won't be long before the world of cricket becomes a world of chuckers.
The law, as it is now, is plain and simple, throwers are easy to spot, the umpires can see them, and if the idea is to get rid of those who throw and not to protect those who throw, all the ICC needs to do to get rid of throwers is to allow the umpires to do their job according to the law.
