A kink in the reading

I would like readers to know, first of all, that I have no problem with Jermaine Lawson of West Indies being reported for a suspect action. No, my problem is with the consistency in the cricket world surrounding this issue. There is far too much hypocrisy and confusion at present.

Remember that David Shepherd, who was one of the umpires at Antigua, where Lawson was reported, has stood in five of Lawson's seven Test matches, including his debut. In the time since, Lawson's action has not really degenerated. Still, it is pardonable, because Lawson's problem is with the odd delivery, as is quite often the case.

What annoys me is that umpires find it convenient to pick on new players, while established players continue taking wickets with equally suspect actions. By doing this, umpires are taking the easy way out and shirking their responsibility towards the game. Lawson needs to, rightly, work on his action - but so do several stars in international cricket. I know it will require great strength on the part of the umpires to report a star, but it has got to be done. What is happening now is a farce. The umpires surely realise that just because a bowler has gone through a stipulated process does not mean his action is clean forever.

In Lawson's case, it was clear in his teens that there was a kink in his action. A few years ago, he went to the academy in Australia, put in a lot of work and came back with an absolutely clean action. Yet, from time to time, his action does deteriorate. Nowadays, there is so much pressure on young bowlers, thanks to the presence of factors like the speed gun, that they tend to overdo it. Bad habits creep in.

The question everybody asks is: what is the perfect system? Well, in an ideal world, suspect actions would never make it to the international level. The individual boards should be strong enough to see to that, and the ICC strong enough to convey that to them. But under the present system, you will still find suspect actions coming through, as in the case of Lawson.

If, at the international level, a bowler is found to have an illegal action, the ICC must make it categorical that he will not be allowed to play international cricket till such time that he is perfectly clean.

The entire chucking problem has to be dealt with by the ICC and its member countries as an unit. We cannot have a cricket board or officials of a cricket board making statements that are counter-productive. Once, for instance, a certain team were instructed by their board to leave the field if a particular member with a questionable action was called. I didn't hear of the ICC doing anything to take that board to task for such a reckless statement. The consequence was that no umpire would then call that particular player for fear of being left out in the cold as has happened in the past.

The best way to call a throw is with the naked eye. I wouldn't like to go to technology straightaway, because doing that often adds to the confusion. There is a place for technology, though - to help eliminate the problem once it has been established that there is something not quite right. It can be instructive to study where the kink comes in and how.

As for this excuse we keep hearing about illegal actions being caused by an abnormality in the bowling arm - the law is unambiguous and should be adhered to. If the bowling arm straightens, even partially, after getting to shoulder height, it is a throw. If, because of natural reasons, the arm is bent to start with, then fine, keep it bent at the same angle through the full action.

The law does not differentiate based on how, or from what angle, the straightening takes place. Once there is straightening, it is a throw. Let us follow the law or change it. I am afraid that youngsters taking to the game will copy what they see on television. We are sending the wrong signals.