[Article] History and Causes of Throwing (Chucking) in Cricket
David Liverman
throwing on rec.sport.cricket, and the no-balling of Zimbabwe's
young fast bowler Olonga, I've been doing a little reading on the
subject of throwing in general. It has had a long history in
cricket, and was the subject of debate long before the "chucking"
crisis of the late 50's and 60's.
Why is throwing effective? To bowl fast, the effect must
come from the combination of the delivery itself; and a smooth
fast run up and transition into the delivery stride. No genuinely
quick bowler has been able to fairly bowl fast from a short or
slow run up. To bowl fast without the associated body action re-
quires arm movement that crosses the boundary of fairness. There
is an element of predictability in the speed of the ball when
delivered fairly, based on the batsman's observation of the run
up. While it is possible to deliver a well disguised slower ball
without changing the action, a faster ball is obvious from the
change in approach and delivery. When a ball is thrown, the speed
comes purely from the arm. It is thus possible to bowl a much
faster ball with no change to the approach. A batsman also picks
up the ball as it leaves the bowler's hand based on the smooth
rotation of the bowler's arm to a predictable release point. The
throwing action interrupts the smooth rotation, and makes the
release point harder to spot. The lack of predictability means
that the batsman is slower to pick the ball up from the bowler's
hand. This can result in a deadly yorker, or even more dangerous
the thrown bouncer or beamer. Throwing is not restricted to fast
bowlers; a spinner who throws can produce a very effective faster
ball, or impart excessive spin.
David Frith in his book "The Fast Men" outlines the his-
tory of fast bowling, and the associated development of what is
considered a fair bowling action. He quotes John Nyren in
describing Tom Brett's action as "neither a thrower or a jerker,
but a legitimate downright bowler", suggesting that even in the
early days of cricket the concept of bowling as opposed to throw-
ing was well developed. Round arm bowling on its inception was
described as throwing, but when legitimized in 1835, a clear dis-
tinction was made in the law between bowling; and throwing or
jerking. By 1864 the law governing bowling was essentially that
of today, with overarm bowling legalized.
Although there have always been a few players about whom
doubts have been raised, there have been times at which throwing
has apparently become more common in the game. In the 1890's
throwing was so prevalent that Spofforth even suggested its le-
galization. The throwing epidemic was cured by a few courageous
umpires, amongst them Jim Phillips who no-balled the illustrious
Ernest Jones in a State match in Australia. Several players left
the game, including the Aborigine Jack Marsh, no-balled 19 times
by Bob Crockett at Sydney in 1901.
Throwing rarely became a major issue again until the late
1950's when there were a number of bowlers with very suspect ac-
tions playing at the highest level. England, traveling to Aus-
tralia with a heavily favoured party lost four of five tests to
Richie Benaud's side. The subsequent complaints about the actions
of particularly Ian Meckiff who bowled out England for 87 on an
easy wicket were seen by the Australian public as sour grapes.
Yet many Australian players were aware of the problem. Meckiff
had already been filmed by the Australian board because of con-
cerns raised internally, and Ray Lindwall introduced himself to
the English team as "the last of the straight arm bowlers". The
English team believed every state apart from Queensland fielded a
thrower. Meckiff's opening partner Gordon Rorke combined a
suspect action with a freakish drag- there are many photographs
showing Rorke dragging his rear foot over the popping crease, and
yet nowhere close to delivering the ball. In effect he bowled
very fast from 18 or 19 yards. The problem, however, was not con-
fined to Australia. Tony Lock, although never no- balled was
thought to throw his faster ball until he re- modeled his action
after watching film of his own bowling. Peter Loader, the last
Englishman to take a hat-trick in Tests was suspected, and E.W
Swanton quotes him as saying (after retirement) "I've never in-
tended to throw, but I always know when I've done it". In 1960,
the South Africans sent Geoff Griffin to England, already no-
balled at home and as Swanton says he "had an action that might
have been specially designed to show how not to bowl". Although
already no-balled by several umpires on the tour, the South Afri-
cans picked him for the Lords Test. They were particularly con-
cerned by the scrutiny of Sid Buller, and McGlew, the South Afri-
can captain bowled him from Buller's end. Griffin took a hat
trick but Frank Lee no-balled him 11 times. Griffin's interna-
tional career came to an unhappy end when Buller no-balled him in
a limited overs friendly game staged because of the premature end
of the Test. Griffin finished the over underhand (and was no-
balled by Frank Lee for not announcing the change), but Buller
was removed from the Test panel.
Meckiff remained in cricket until 1963 (he was at the
wicket when his partner was run out to end the famous tied test
between Australia and the West Indies). He suffered injury, but
returned to Test cricket against South Africa in 1963. There he
was no-balled four times (by an Australian umpire, Colin Eagar)
and never played first class cricket again. The change in Aus-
tralian attitudes stemmed from a meeting of the Imperial Cricket
Conference in 1960, where for the first time the problem was
openly acknowledged, as was the difficulties resulting from the
calling of a player from a visiting team. Each country left this
meeting with a promise to attempt to eliminate throwing internal-
ly. The Australians were particularly stringent ,with players
whose actions were suspect simply not picked. Meckiff had modi-
fied his action, but had still been no-balled in State matches
prior to his last game against South Africa. Why he was still
picked for this game is a mystery. Umpires in England also start-
ed to be more diligent, and were encouraged to take action
against suspect players. Both Harold Rhodes of Derbyshire and
Butch White of Somerset were no-balled in the following years.
This brings us to 1965 and Charlie Griffith. Richie
Benaud, who as captain had seen Meckiff no-balled out of cricket
in 1963, and accompanying the tour as a journalist, suggested in
the press during the first Test that Griffith threw. He was voic-
ing suspicions he had held since 1963 when he had seen Griffith
in England. English players had also thought Griffith's action
suspect at times, and the West Indians were well aware of poten-
tial problems. E.W Swanton notes that Sobers, who normally
fielded in the slips or at short leg, stayed at mid-off when
Griffith was bowling in order to advise him and also states that
Frank Worrell had not wanted to bring Griffith to England in 1963
because of his doubts. Griffith had a good action for the most
part, although with a fairly slow run up, and most of his bowling
was considered fair .The suspicions arose concerning the odd fas-
ter ball, or yorker, where straining for extra pace or length may
have caused him to deviate from fairness. Griffith was called
twice in his career, once by a West Indian umpire, Cortez Jordan,
shortly after Griffith had severely injured Contractor, and also
by Arthur Fagg, during the 1966 tour.
The evidence to me is quite clear- Charlie Griffith prob-
ably did throw the odd delivery. Why is this such an emotional
issue? It's hard to have a rational debate on the subject of
throwing. Bowlers are "accused" of throwing, they are labeled as
"chuckers", and in some cases have been drummed out of the game.
To state that Charlie Griffith threw the odd delivery raises the
ire of many, especially those of that player's home country who
perceive this as an insult. Why is this? Other instances of
breaking a law occur- persistent short pitched bowling, ball
tampering also cause tempers to rise in debate, whereas other
infringements- overstepping the crease, short runs carry the same
penalty, but not the stigma. This is because some infringements
overstep the line from gamesmanship to cheating. Yet while bowl-
ing at a batsman's head or raising the seam is definitely inten-
tional, throwing is generally not. I doubt that any of the
bowlers I've discussed above ever deliberately set out to break
Law 24.2. Many were bowling as they had throughout their career,
and had not been no-balled previously. They may have discovered a
particular faster ball or yorker that makes them more effective,
but there is no intent to cheat. Their suspect actions had
developed over many years, and had been ignored by their coaches,
clubmates and umpires.
How does a thrower reach first class or test cricket? I
think for a number of reasons. Put yourself in the position of an
umpire at a school game. You are standing at square leg watching
a very good young bowler Not every ball, but just the odd
delivery looks a little strange to you. It's not an easy thing to
call a no-ball. To do so publicly humiliates the bowler, and it
looks particularly bad as your team is losing. Anyway, because
it's not every delivery, there's an element of doubt. After he's
taken a bunch of wickets, and your side has lost badly, even a
quiet word in his coach's ear would seem like a poor loser. It's
easier just to let it go. For a coach, it's hard to tell your
best bowler, maybe the best player you've ever coached, to change
his action. The higher the level the harder it is to disturb the
status quo. It's assumed that to reach a high level the action
must be fair. It's particularly hard for a home umpire to call a
touring player in a Test- the repercussions are enormous. Even at
the State-county championship level to call a bowler could, given
past history, lead to the end of his career.
Apart from Olonga, mentioned above, there are few rumours
of throwing in the first class game at the moment, probably be-
cause today's administrators remember all too well the crisis of
the 1960's. But if throwing arises again, remember, it's likely
not the fault of the player who is victimized by being forced out
of his profession, but of the many coaches umpires, and adminis-
trators who have turned a blind eye.
Dave Liverman
live...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
Tansen Varghese
>fast run up and transition into the delivery stride. No genuinely
>quick bowler has been able to fairly bowl fast from a short or
>slow run up. To bowl fast without the associated body action re-
>quires arm movement that crosses the boundary of fairness. There
Or it requires extreme strength and a javelin action. Jeff
Thompson was the fastest in his day, and before his shoulder
injury, he had a run up that was very slow. He didn't need
the run up that much as he was getting his pace from his
shoulder action. After his injury, his run up started getting
longer as he couldn't get that much out of his shoulder, I
guess.
Tanny
sultana...@gmail.com
> In article <3pfldo$p...@risky.ecs.umass.edu> live...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (David Liverman) writes:
> >quick bowler has been able to fairly bowl fast from a short or
> >slow run up. To bowl fast without the associated body action re-
> >quires arm movement that crosses the boundary of fairness. There
>
> Thompson was the fastest in his day, and before his shoulder
> injury, he had a run up that was very slow. He didn't need
> the run up that much as he was getting his pace from his
> shoulder action. After his injury, his run up started getting
> longer as he couldn't get that much out of his shoulder, I
> guess.
>
> Tanny
Rumi
RH156RH
> In article <3pfldo$p...@risky.ecs.umass.edu> live...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (David Liverman) writes:
> >quick bowler has been able to fairly bowl fast from a short or
> >slow run up. To bowl fast without the associated body action re-
> >quires arm movement that crosses the boundary of fairness. There
>
> Thompson was the fastest in his day, and before his shoulder
> injury, he had a run up that was very slow. He didn't need
> the run up that much as he was getting his pace from his
> shoulder action. After his injury, his run up started getting
> longer as he couldn't get that much out of his shoulder, I
> guess.
>
> Tanny
RH156RH
https://www.flickr.com/photos/36824443@N04/3420441301
RH