The problem of chucking

The recently concluded Test match at St. John's in Antigua saw another chucking controversy, when Jermaine Lawson - who picked up 7 for 78 in the first innings - was reported by the umpires. I was once part of the International Cricket Council (ICC) Illegal Deliveries Committee, though I don't know if I'm any longer on it. I've had no letter of confirmation from the ICC saying that they have reorganised or reconstituted the committee. I may be there as a consultant if someone's faulty action needs to be attended to - with special emphasis on spinners, of course.

If you ask me how effective the panel has been, I'm afraid I won't be able to give you a positive answer. If you take individual cases, there has certainly been some progress. I remember going to London with Rajesh Chauhan, and working together with Fred Titmus, to modify his action. But if you look at the bigger picture, there are anomalies. I was involved in a teleconference a few years ago to discuss Brett Lee's action, which was then under scrutiny.

They sent us tapes, which we watched in order to find out whether our impressions matched those of the umpires and match officials. There was a limitation, though, in that the footage we saw was not comprehensive. I suggested at the time that the video evidence shown to the panel should be pertinent to the deliveries that had been no-balled by the officials. For example, if the bowler had a kink in his action in the third ball of his 24th over, the match officials could make a note of that, and subsequent video scrutiny would focus on footage of that delivery, and others like it. I heard that a similar procedure was adopted for the Lawson controversy.

My advice to the match officials would be to note down any deliveries that they find suspicious, for later reference. If it persists, you can warn the bowler, or even ask the captain to take him off. In many cases, the naked eye alone can detect an illegal delivery. You don't necessarily need to be a fast bowler to detect something awry in a fast bowler's action, just as you don't need to be a spinner to find a kink in a slow bowler's. But remedial action is best left to specialists.

If an offspinner has an open-chested action, he can go wrong in a number of ways. He may fail to bowl a consistently good length, he may be in a hurry to leave the ball at the time of delivery and he may not be able to rotate his arm in a vertical arc. This could result in a belated attempt to direct the ball at the stumps, which can often result in an illegal delivery. When you are side-on, however, your arm has to complete a vertical circle, which means that chucking is next to impossible. With the right coaching, the problem can easily be eradicated.

I think the main problem now is that umpires sometimes hesitate to call a bowler who has been cleared by the committee. There are two issues here. Firstly, no umpire should go to the ground with a mental block, or a pre-conceived notion regarding a certain player's action. Secondly, the officiating umpire is the ultimate judge.

What is certainly out of order is the habit of separating certain umpires and teams. Darrell Hair no longer officiates in games involving Sri Lanka, and I think that's fundamentally wrong. If someone calls you for throwing, I think the right way forward is to seek rectification, rather than see the umpire's action as part of some personal vendetta. If an umpire feels that a player who has been cleared of wrong-doing is still bowling with an illegal action, they should be able to take a second look.

Chucking is a bigger problem now than it was in my playing days. Just before I made my debut, the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) acted firmly in the case of Ian Meckiff. The issue was never blown out of proportion, and it was dealt with promptly.

As for people who say that umpires should be given more power, I disagree. I think they just need to exercise the power vested in them. Why should they feel shy? If cricket is to stay a gentleman's game, the ICC and the umpires must see eye-to-eye, and not shirk their respective duties.