Right on target

Towards the end of last year, ICC possibly made the most fundamental rule change in its history. The new tolerance level of 15 degrees on bowling actions has triggered a controversy that some say separates traditionalists from modernists. I suggest it separates the ignorant from the enlightened. The question for cricket is how it can adapt to the forensic examination that blanket television coverage conducts. On this occasion I believe that ICC has made a surprisingly wise change to the laws of cricket. And this belief has nothing to do with my involvement in the law change as an advisor to the ICC.

First, let's be clear about the challenge that television coverage has created for lawmakers. Technology allows viewers to observe bowlers' actions in microscopic detail, picking out kinks in a bowler's action that would previously have gone unnoticed. By the same token, technology now offers us a much better understanding of the biomechanics of a bowling action, a level of detail that has clearly shown that although we once believed that most bowlers could bowl with a straight arm, most in fact have some straightening at the elbow when the arm swings from the level of the shoulder through to the point of delivery.

We now know that going by the strict interpretation of the original laws of cricket, virtually all bowlers are chuckers, sinners in their professional trade. We also know that there are all sorts of other joint movements - at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist - taking place during delivery, and not just simple straightening of the elbow joint. In addition, the degree of movement at each joint varies from person to person in a mostly unpredictable way. The complexities of these different movements is such that when biomechanics experts explained them to the ICC's panel on illegal actions, the panelists - including stern critics of the moves to revise the laws, like Michael Holding - burst out laughing because the range of movements were bewildering when considered in microscopic detail.

The dilemma faced by the ICC was that it had evidence that many bowlers were unwittingly breaking the law as stated. What was it to do with this information? Was it right to insist on a law that modern technology had shown was now irrelevant to our understanding of the biomechanics of a bowling action? Was it right to keep a law that labelled modern bowlers as "cheats" even though modern bowlers were bowling just as their predecessors had?

Clearly the answer to this had to be no - and the law had to change. In which case, should there be a different rule for spinners and faster bowlers? And was the current tolerance level of 10 degrees for fast bowlers a reasonable one for spinners? What about differentiating legspinners and offspinners? What about other categories of bowlers, such as medium-pacers? This is where the ICC really got it right: the suggestion of a single tolerance level for all bowlers is simple and fair. By increasing this tolerance level to 15 degrees, ICC has again got it right, acknowledging that the most comprehensive - and latest - research shows that a tolerance level of 10 degrees was not sufficient to cater to the range of natural variation exposed by these detailed investigations. Otherwise players that we all believe to be clean would become criminals overnight.

It is now clear that straightening of the elbow during delivery is a normal human biomechanical reaction and must be allowed to some degree if cricket is to remain a serious competitive sport and not become a kindergarten game. And a tolerance level of 15 degrees is reasonable because it outlaws a small proportion of players and may well be the level of straightening that is detectable by the human eye.

These moves by the ICC should help cricket resolve a major crisis in the sport with a solution that is fair, well-researched, and above all simple. The status quo or a more complicated solution would have continued to make a mockery of the delicate issue of illegal bowling actions. This new law proposed by the ICC is a brave and sensible attempt to come to terms with the challenges of modern technology and our improved understanding of biomechanics. It is a law we should all support.