ICC suggests changes in ‘suspect’ bowling detection

Cricket’s governing body to open illegal-testing labs in more countries.


News Desk June 06, 2014
ICC has stated that the methods currently in use to detect illegal bowling actions lack accuracy. PHOTO: REUTERS/FILE

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has stated that the methods currently in use to detect illegal bowling actions lack accuracy, according to a press release.

The relevant committee, which discussed the issue during a two-day meeting in Bangalore on June 3 and 4, said that numerous international bowlers with ‘suspect’ actions were continuing to bowl undetected, and hence it was important that match officials get support from biomechanists to identify the illegal actions with ‘more confidence’.

“The committee discussed the issue of illegal bowling actions, and believed that there are a number of bowlers currently employing suspect actions in international cricket, and that the ICC’s reporting and testing procedures are not adequately scrutinising these bowlers,” read the press release.

“It recommended that changes be considered to encourage umpires and referees to identify suspect bowlers with greater confidence, to use the expertise of the biomechanists working in this area to assume a greater role during the assessment process, and to allow for ongoing scrutiny of bowlers once they have been identified under the ICC procedures.”

Additionally, the ICC has decided to open illegal-action testing centres in more countries to make the process more robust.

Until now, bowlers had to travel to the laboratories at the University of Western Australia in Perth to undergo testing, but the committee was informed of additional centres being accredited by the ICC.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 7th, 2014.

Like Sports on Facebook, follow @ETribuneSports on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ