Simpson: 'I think it's obvious when a ball is not bowled'

Why is this issue of chucking such a problem?
It's something I've been concerned with for over 50 years. If a bowler oversteps the crease by a tiny bit, it's a no-ball. If he does not bowl the ball, it is a no-ball. If we can simplify it down to that we've got a far better chance of addressing the problem of illegal deliveries. But, at present I think we've become very complicated in our handling of this matter.

But someone like Steve Bucknor suggested recently that what we see with a naked eye is not always the best view, and TV cameras and multiple angles may be the only way to call a bowler with an illegal action ...
I respect Steve Bucknor, but I don't have the same views. I think it's very, very obvious when a ball is not bowled. People forget that this is what it is all about - a ball being bowled. If that does not happen, no matter what is being done, it is not a legal delivery. I find that people know almost immediately when something different is happening. That is the first indicator that something might be an illegal delivery, and invariably it is. Generally, you see a bowler and think "Hey, that's not right." When my grandson was about 8 or 9 he could tell me when I threw and when I bowled, so it can't be that difficult.

But, in your experience, have you first thought a bowler was chucking and then changed your mind later on?
Not too often. Not too often at all. I think we are getting more complicated than necessary. There are all sorts of suggestions that if you no-ball a bowler for chucking you're depriving him of his livelihood and you may well be sued. On the other side of it, what if an illegal-action bowler bowls a batsman out consistently? Do you sue him? If the umpire gives a wrong decision do you sue the umpire for destroying a career? On the whole I think we're over-complicating the issue. If a bowler bowls and is called for an illegal action, he can remedy it in the very next delivery, in the same way that he can remedy it if he oversteps. Until we start to view it like that, we've got some worries.

But with all these degrees of flexion, aren't we just changing the laws to suit the bowler, when it should actually be the other way around?
Exactly right. If the ICC continues in that area we're making it terribly difficult for an umpire to make a decision. How do you judge five degrees? How do you judge 7.5 degrees? It just seems crazy to me. I was on the committee that dealt with illegal actions. I was also on the committee in the MCC that rewrote the laws of the game. What I really wanted to achieve, but wasn't possible, was that the bowler's arm should be straight at the lowest point of his action and then stay that way till the end of the delivery, because that's what genuine bowlers do. Bowlers that get into trouble are the ones that cut their action short, and when they do this, their arm doesn't get fully extended. It is then bent until the point of delivery when it straightens, and that is what a throw is. What we were able to do was change the law to say that if the arm is bent at shoulder-height and straightens partially or fully after that, it is an illegal delivery. This helped the umpires as well, because if they were to stand back, they could see this. I don't think that's hard to see at all [chuckles]. You're standing behind the bowler, which is the best place to be to tell whether an action is pure or not. But unfortunately it was decided that it would be better if the umpire did not call the bowler but instead referred the matter on for adjudication. That's where we got into trouble.

All the talk is centred around two or three successful bowlers. Would you say the problem is bigger than just that?
The problem is huge. In the last two years I believe I have seen bowlers whose actions weren't good and should have been examined in eight out of the ten Test-playing countries. I'm certainly not going to name people, but I would have thought that the best way to handle that matter would have been a process where the bowlers could be reported, not necessarily by the umpires or the match referee, but by members of the illegal-action committee. And then we could have handled the matter without anyone knowing about it. I suggested this years ago. But unfortunately it went to a major committee of the ICC and politics got involved. It's gone from there and now we've got a situation where it takes virtually 12 months for an independent ICC committee to examine a bowler. If a bowler gets reported, why hand the matter back to the people who picked him to play in the first place? Surely they're happy with his action if they're genuine. It just seems to me that the sooner it gets into the hands of an independent committee, the better.

Previously there was a stigma over being called for chucking ...
There's never been any stigma. These problems have existed for a long, long time. People said, 'Aw, if we no-ball him for throwing we'll destroy his career.' Well, if he doesn't obey the laws of the game he shouldn't have a career. It's the same for a batsman - he must abide by the laws of the game.

But there have been first-class cricketers who were called for chucking and never played again. Was this because of the stigma or simply because they could not remedy their actions?
Look, you've got the opportunity to remedy your action. If you are called, you have the option to remedy it off the very next ball and make sure your action is OK. If they can't, then that's a problem for them. I must admit, over the years I can remember only one player who had a problem with his bowling action who changed it and became pure. That was Tony Lock. He was the only one to change his action because he was throwing, and continued at the highest level.

Does the responsibility in this matter lie with the ICC alone? What about coaches and captains?
The responsibility lies with coaches and officials to sort it out at the earliest possible age. Then you can do something to fix the problem and the person can go on to be a good bowler. Once you get to the age of about 19-20 it becomes a very tough assignment. The responsibility is possibly also with the selectors, to make sure that they only pick bowlers who conform to the laws.

But do you realistically see this happening?
That's why it's not happening, because the selectors will want to pick the person who they think will win a match. But is it right for the interest of the game to pick a person even if he throws, just because of the kudos to the association or the coach if the team wins? Or should we be thinking of the big picture? If you think that through, see what happened at the last Under-19 World Cup. Six players were reported. That's a big number, and I still think that is but a small number of players out there who are now adopting illegal actions.

There have been suggestions from some former cricketers that certain players add so much to the game with express pace or big turn that the odd illegal ball should be overlooked ...
I would think people who say that are ill-informed and have no interest in the benefits of the game or the future of the game. OK, in that case instead of bowlers let's just have pitchers and get on with it. Let's allow everyone to stand at the crease and throw. Is that the next step then? If we allow rule changes to be made to push a problem into the corner - and that's what's happening right now - I'd be totally opposed. I think anyone who suggests this sort of thing, including Steve Waugh, is way off base.