England Women news May 1, 2012

ICC rules Gunn's action legal

ESPNcricinfo staff

The bowling action of Jenny Gunn, the England fast bowler, has been proved to be legal for the second time in three years after independent tests undertaken on behalf of the ICC.

The report was submitted by Jacqueline Alderson, a member of the ICC's panel of human movement specialists, based at the school of sports science at the University of Perth in Western Australia.

An ICC statement said: "The report indicates that during delivery, Gunn displays a high degree of hyperextension in her bowling arm which she is unable to control. On the basis that hyperextension does not count in the ICC extension threshold of 15 degrees, all of her deliveries recorded during testing were within the ICC tolerance threshold.

"Her action will continue to be scrutinised by match officials to ensure it remains legal. However they will be made aware of the degree of hyperextension that is present in Gunn's action."

Gunn, 24, was reported by umpires Derek Walker and Phil Jones after the first ODI between New Zealand and England at the Bert Sutcliffe Oval in Lincoln two months ago.

She was previously reported in Australia ahead of the 2009 World Cup but retained her place in the England squad which went on to win the tournament, although she did not play in the final.

Edited by David Hopps

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • jmcilhinney on May 2, 2012, 0:22 GMT

    It would be interesting to know what the actual numbers are. Presumably the angle of her arm when it is flexed is less than 15 degrees but the sum of the angles of her arm when it is flexed and when it is hyperextended is greater than 15 degrees. If that's so then you'd have to say that it's fair enough that she was reported in the first place but also fair enough that she was cleared. The fact that they say that she will continue to be monitored suggests that she's not far within the bounds of legality though.

  • jmcilhinney on May 2, 2012, 0:22 GMT

    It would be interesting to know what the actual numbers are. Presumably the angle of her arm when it is flexed is less than 15 degrees but the sum of the angles of her arm when it is flexed and when it is hyperextended is greater than 15 degrees. If that's so then you'd have to say that it's fair enough that she was reported in the first place but also fair enough that she was cleared. The fact that they say that she will continue to be monitored suggests that she's not far within the bounds of legality though.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • jmcilhinney on May 2, 2012, 0:22 GMT

    It would be interesting to know what the actual numbers are. Presumably the angle of her arm when it is flexed is less than 15 degrees but the sum of the angles of her arm when it is flexed and when it is hyperextended is greater than 15 degrees. If that's so then you'd have to say that it's fair enough that she was reported in the first place but also fair enough that she was cleared. The fact that they say that she will continue to be monitored suggests that she's not far within the bounds of legality though.