Bowling out the ban

Cricket lovers from all over Bangladesh have been left in shock and utter disbelief by the suspension of the Bangladeshi bowlers Taskin Ahmed and Arafat Sunny. Amidst the furor and confusion, skepticism has been expressed over such assessment process of the International Cricket Council (ICC); if their bowling action is indeed illegal, why among all things, would it come to light amidst an International tournament is a question yielding much speculation and criticism among cricket crazed fans.

Before withdrawing its services to ICC in 2014, the University of Western Australia had expressed concerns about the new testing protocol of using of two-dimensional match footage to determine whether bowlers are bowling with the same action while undergoing testing. One of the key areas of mistrust also concerned the methodology used to place markers on the bowlers' bodies to determine whether a delivery is illegal.

Veteran lawyer and Bangladesh Cricket Board consultant Barrister Mustafizur Rahman Khan has provided the following explanation to Law & Our Rights:

According to Regulation 2.2.6, a bowler would only need to replicate the bowling of the match in which he was reported and Taskin Ahmed, as per the footage, had not even bowled one bouncer in the Bangladesh- Netherlands  match he was cited. In his assessment, he bowled a successive of bouncers, out of which three were deemed illegal.

Although a minimum of 6 bouncers can be asked for Taskin to bowl according to ICC Standard Analysis Protocols of Annexure I of the Regulations, on a proper construction, such bouncers cannot be evaluative, as he was not reported for a bouncer. In the case of a conflict between the Regulation and the Protocols, the Regulation will prevail as protocols are only supplementary to its readings.

Since Tashin Ahmed's regular deliveries were found legal in both the assessment and the match, it is certain that his bowling action during the match was not questionable. The regulations were meant to ascertain whether the player bowled any illegal delivery during the match, and did not contemplate suspending a bowler for delivering an illegal delivery in test conditions, which he did not bowl during the match. Therefore, he cannot be suspended and his reporting by the Match Officials was wrong.

It is to be borne in mind that the bowler was already fatigued by travelling and participation in 3 international matches. In T20 International matches, bowlers can bowl only one bouncer in an over, his fatigue combined with the stress of bowling such deliveries in quick succession can be said to have contributed to the 'three' illegal deliveries.

There is also an issue of ambiguity over the Match Official's Report. According to Regulation 2.1.1, it should state concerns, inter alia, that relate to the cited bowler's bowling action in general or any specific type of delivery. However for Taskin, the report merely stated that the Match officials were 'concerned about the legality of the bowling action".  The form of the Report requires the Match Officials to state the reason for such concern, which in this case, was not given. Hence, to begin with, there is also an issue of whether the Match Officials' Report was a competent/compliant one, on the basis of which there could have been an Assessment in the first place.

Contention also lies from the fact that Regulation 2.2.13 allows a bowler to continue bowling at International cricket sparing the delivery he was reported for: if he bowls the illegal delivery he will run the risk of being cited a second time. Since Taskin's stock delivery has been found legal and only 3 of his 9 bouncers illegal, he could have been warned but not suspended.

Barrister Khaled Hamid Choudhury, also an expert on cricket rules and counsel for Mohammad Ashraful in his case, expressed likewise views: "Taskin deserves the fullest compliance with the regulations by the ICC before a serious decision like the suspension is taken against him as such a decision may harm his career and he may not be the same bowler again. It seems from the reading of the report that though umpires have the authority to report him for his bowling actions generally (Regulation 2.1) they should give reasons whereas it seems no reason for concerns were given in Taskin's case. Then in the Independent Assessment, he was asked to bowl 9 bouncers in just 3 minutes!"

Barrister Khaled went on to insist that Taskin only bowled his last 3 slower bouncers in an illegal fashion. Like his colleague, he too averred over the actual purposefulness of making Taskin bowl bouncers which are not his stock deliveries. He views the suspension as ultra vires or beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee hence illegal in itself. The due course of action according to him would be to seek a Review by Judicial Commissioner under Regulation 2.1.15 read with Regulation 2.3.1 within 7 days of the receipt of the report. He opined that although the prospects of achieving a quick yet desirous outcome is slim, if good sense prevails, such quick justice may save ICC from further embarrassment

THE WRITER IS A STUDENT OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES.