The right decision at the wrong time

Taskin Ahmed has played 27 international matches since his debut in April 2014. He is yet to play a Test, but his pace and bounce are two reasons Bangladesh are hopeful they can move away from being a spin-oriented side.

Two of Taskin's 27 matches were against India in Dhaka, in June 2015. Rod Tucker was one of the on-field umpires in each of those matches. In those two matches, Taskin bowled 11 short balls, five of which were proper bouncers. One of them even got him Shikhar Dhawan's wicket. Taskin came into the World Twenty20 with no official having ever cast any doubt over his action.

Tucker was the standing umpire again in Taskin's first match at the World T20, against Netherlands in Dharamsala. It was the first international match in India for nearly every Bangladesh player in the team. In that match, Taskin bowled four short balls, but none of them were what you would call a proper bouncer. Yet, at the end of the match, the Bangladesh team management received a report from the match officials that they had concerns over the legality of Taskin's action; he had played 23 international matches over two years without any suspicion raised over his action.

Taskin subsequently underwent an independent assessment in Chennai and, according to a BCB lawyer, the report of that assessment says that three of the nine bouncers that Taskin bowled in a span of three minutes were chucked. Taskin is now not allowed to bowl in international cricket until he gets his action cleared by the ICC.

Bangladesh are feeling hard done by. Heath Streak, the Bangladesh bowling coach, says he has studied the footage and does not see any change in Taskin's action from the Asia Cup or that India series, to this World T20. Chandika Hathurasingha, their coach, said a day after the report was originally filed: "If they [the officials] have a concern about my bowlers, I have a concern about their actions as well. I don't see anything wrong [with the actions]. They have bowled the same way as the last 12 months. As you said if they have officiated the matches they have been playing, they must have seen something different yesterday. That's all I can say."

What has especially irked the Bangladesh camp is the timing of this report. What has suddenly gone wrong, they wonder. It is not like the sudden calling of Saeed Ajmal and Sunil Narine, who too had been allowed to bowl for a long time. In their case, there was a certain watershed moment, a clear line drawn by the ICC to say no to illegal actions. Taskin's case has come up after this turning point, which is why it begs the question, why now?

However, the argument questioning how the umpires could know if the bouncer was suspect when Taskin did not even bowl a bouncer is spurious. None of the umpires in the match said that Taskin chucks, or chucks a particular delivery. They only raised a suspicion about the action, which they wanted checked at a proper independent lab. In no way was Taskin stopped from participating in matches until it was proven that the action was indeed illegal under the ICC code.

What is indeed unfortunate is the timing. Bangladesh, and Taskin, have been preparing for this event for a long time. They prepared those green pitches in Asia Cup because they expected high-quality fast bowling in this event, especially in Dharamsala, which is reputed to be a hard and bouncy pitch. They got this news immediately after the first match. Now they probably wish they knew it earlier, that some umpire had suspected Taskin's action earlier.

We must not for a moment forget that the right call has been made, and that it has been scientifically proven. Even Bangladesh are only contesting the procedures and the timing, not the actual decision. If the action has not changed, and if the umpires earlier did not raise any suspicion, questions need to be asked of those umpires too.

One quick look will tell you only a handful of those umpires from the ICC elite panel officiated these matches; there was no elite umpire during the Asia Cup that finished three days before the World T20. After the last World Cup, this World T20 was the first time Taskin bowled in the presence of more than one elite umpire. The decision to report a suspicion is often a collective call. It could perhaps be more than a coincidence that he has been called the first time in a year that he has bowled in front of four elite umpires.

To report somebody is a big move. You need the support of your team of umpires. It is possible there was not enough as Taskin played limited-overs cricket only at home, during which you have only one elite umpire, that too in ODIs. You need to be sure to make such a report. Perhaps Tucker did not suspect it enough to make an official report in those two matches. Perhaps he took his time to make up his mind; perhaps for the first time he got a team of umpires that all agreed on Taskin's action.

There are simply not enough elite umpires to stand in every international match. There is a reason why the ones in the elite panel are there. They are also more empowered, more confident. Hence, at a big world event the scrutiny increases. It is still extremely unfortunate for Bangladesh because they deserved to know earlier.

Only the umpires who stood in Taskin's earlier matches can say why they did not raise the suspicion. It is a bit like a few uneventful no-balls going undetected but the one that takes the wicket being replayed and thus called. Had he been called earlier, the bowler might not have missed on that wicket. Had Taskin been suspected earlier, he might have not missed on parts of this World T20.