The International Cricket Council will consider sweeping changes to the way in which international cricket deals with illegal actions following recommendations put forward by an expert panel of former international cricketers which have received the support of the ICC's Cricket Committee chaired by former Indian captain, Sunil Gavaskar.
The changes were recommended by an expert panel comprising Aravinda de Silva, Angus Fraser, Michael Holding, Tony Lewis and Tim May along with the former South African vice-captain and ICC General Manager David Richardson.
The proposed changes would include:
1) Establishing that the starting point for any report is the appearance of the suspected bowling action to the naked eye.
2) Changing the review process from a two stage system to one stage process and giving the ICC the authority to manage this process from the outset.
3) Shortening the time period between reporting and assessment from six to four weeks. The player would still remain eligible to play during this period.
4) Introducing an automatic suspension if a player is found to be using a flawed action after this assessment until such time that he is able to prove that his action has been remedied.
5) Extending the period during which a second report of the same player could result in a year-long ban from cricket from one year to two years.
6) Clarifying that the focus of the rules is to concentrate on bowlers who straighten their arm from the flexed position during their bowling action rather than on those players who involuntarily hyperextend (i.e. move the arm backwards) or whose arm moves sideways at the elbow joint during the bowling action.
7) Introducing a standard "level of tolerance" of 15 degrees for all bowlers rather than the scaled levels currently in place. Levels of tolerance are in place to deal with the reality that almost every bowler in international cricket will straighten his arm to some degree because of the bio-mechanical forces at work in his action.
Expert advice has identified that the recommended level of tolerance of 15 degrees will accommodate any straightening that is as a result of the bio-mechanical forces at work in the action. These experts have demonstrated that this is also consistent with the point at which any straightening is likely to become noticeable to the naked eye.
8) Overhauling the ICC guidelines for dealing with the evaluation protocols to ensure that when assessing a bowler's action there is consistency in the measures and methods used to determine the legality the action.
9) Ensuring that there are additional steps to detect players with potentially illegal actions before they reach full international cricket.
10) Further consultation with the Marylebone Cricket Club as the body responsible for the Laws of the Game on the specific law dealing with this issue.
Richardson explained that the issue was a complex one.
"The issue of illegal actions has been a controversial one in cricket for decades and is often is clouded by the emotional responses that accompany the reporting of a player," he said..
"We need to find a way to respect the spirit and tradition of the game while also taking advantage of the insights that advances in science and technology give us into what takes place in a bowling action."
In reaching its recommendations, the expert panel first considered a number of important principles to guide international cricket as it tackles this issue. These principles included the rationale of Law 24.2, the scientific realities of what takes place in a bowler's action and the merits of applying tolerance levels to a bowler's action.
Richardson said that the starting point for the discussion was Law 24.2 and what it was seeking to do.
"The discussions on the Law confirmed that the overriding purpose was to prevent bowlers from throwing the ball rather than it being in place to either protect the batsmen from dangerous deliveries or to prevent the bowler gaining an unfair advantage."
"The contribution of the former England captain and MCC President, Tony Lewis, also helped in clarifying that the clear intention of the law makers was to deal with players who straighten their arm during the bowling action rather than those who involuntarily hyperextend their arm or whose arm moves sideways at the elbow," he added.
The panel analysed the research and discussed this issue and is united in its view that the naked eye should remain the starting point for any report of a bowler.
"The law is written for all levels of cricket. In order that all bowlers at all levels are treated in the same way and that the bowlers of today are treated in a similar manner to the bowlers of previous generations, the consistent position is to retain the naked eye viewing the action at normal speed as the starting point for any report," said the former South African wicketkeeper.
Before accepting that there was any requirement to make any allowance for any bowler, the panel examined the research of three prominent bio-mechanists, Professor Bruce Elliot, Dr Paul Hurrion and Marc Portus, who have all studied this issue over several years.
Member of the expert panel and former West Indian fast bowler, Michael Holding, said that after being initially sceptical he became convinced of the need to deal with the reality of bowlers straightening their arms.
"The scientific evidence is overwhelming," Holding said.
"When bowlers who to the naked eye look to have pure actions are thoroughly analysed with the assistance of the sophisticated technology now in place, they are likely to be shows as straightening their arm by 11 and in some cases 12 degrees. Under a strict interpretation of the law, these players are breaking the rules.
"The game needs to deal with this reality and make its judgment as to how it accommodates this fact."
Consistent with the position that the naked eye should be the starting point for any reporting, the panel took the view that that the practical impact of the Law is that it seeks to outlaw any action that has a visible straightening of the arm.
With the assistance of the experts, the panel took the view that the appropriate "level of tolerance" should be at the point where the elbow extension is likely to become visible to the naked eye. This point is at 15 degrees.
The panel also noted that this level would also accommodate the degree of straightening that is likely to occur in a bowling action due to the bio-mechanical forces that are at work.
It also concluded that setting differing levels for different types of bowlers is difficult if not impossible to enforce and would not accommodate the instance of a fast bowler using slower paced deliveries or a slower bowler who used quicker balls.
These proposals emerged from the ICC meeting which was held in Dubai on October 25-26, 2004, where the expert panel considered research into bowling actions from around the world, including the latest research commissioned by the ICC during the Champions Trophy in September this year.
The expert panel's proposals were then considered by a special meeting of the ICC's Cricket Committee in Dubai on November 9, 2004.
The ICC Cricket Committee (CC) is made up of former international players and umpires and is responsible for making recommendations on issues to do with the playing of the game.
The CC endorsed the expert panel's proposals and they will now be considered by the ICC Chief Executives' Committee at its next meeting, currently scheduled for Melbourne, Australia in February 2005.
ICC Chief Executive, Malcolm Speed, said that the recommendations from the Cricket Committee will need to be properly debated and discussed by the Chief Executives of all countries before they are adopted.
"The information and the recommendations provided by the Cricket Committee are valuable and important but this matter is still to be properly considered by the Chief Executives of the Test-playing countries," Speed said.
"This will take place at the next meeting of the ICC Chief Executives' Committee during which I would expect that there will be a full and healthy debate as the people who run cricket in each country consider the proposals put forward and determine whether this option provides a better solution than the system currently in place."
