Querl, Taylor suspended over suspect actions
Both were reported on two separate occasions within a 12-month period and underwent independent analysis on May 20. The reports from the analysis were received by the ECB on May 28 and identified the bowling actions of each player as displaying elbow extension in excess of the permitted 15 degrees.
As such, both players have been suspended from bowling immediately and must undergo remedial work on their actions and fresh independent analysis.
Querl, 24, is a right-arm seam bowler from Zimbabwe who has played 14 first-class matches for Matabeleland and, having played one-day cricket in England for the Unicorns since 2010, was taken on trial at Hampshire.
Querl was called for throwing in January by umpire Russell Tiffin playing for Matabeleland against Mashonaland. But Zimbabwe Cricket does not have the equipment available to test bowlers' actions and Querl was allowed to play the two remaining Logan Cup matches.
But in the first of those, the MidWest opening batsman initially refused to face Querl in the second innings and an anonymous source from the club said: "He should not be allowed to bowl, his action is suspect and his short ball endangers the lives of the batsmen. Our umpires do not have the courage to call him, only one umpire has done so."
Taylor is a 21-year-old offspinner who has come through the Gloucestershire academy and made his first team debut in August 2010. He began the 2013 season as Gloucestershire's No. 1 slow-bolwer in the County Championship, taking six wickets in four matches.
Both bowlers were subject to analysis of their actions that follows the same procedures used by the ICC. This marks a change for ECB testing whose previous analysis, conducted by the school of Sport, Exercise and Health Science at Loughborough University, was not recognised by the ICC.
Dr Mark King, a senior lecturer at Loughborough, had previously used a different methodology to the ICC-approved testing at the University of Western Australia. Dr King, in research published in Issue 30 of The Journal of Sports Science, claimed the UWA testing was not as accurate and they had not published a validation of their procedure.