In an era where there have been more citings of bowlers transgressing the throwing portion of Law 24 than there have been in the past 40 years, how much blame can we attribute to not only modern coaches, umpires and selectors but also administrators?Hopefully you read without prejudice the comments of Chris Broad about how the ICC have been forced to clean up the game by taking a tougher line on bowlers with suspect actions. This is because coaches, umpires, and administrators have failed over the years to do the job they should have been doing all along.Broad’s comments indicate how the systems, from school to senior club levels have let the players down — and here the school and club umpires need to shoulder as much blame as the coaches. After all, Sri Lankan Ruchira Perreira was found to be transgressing the law as far back as 1998, but he was allowed to play seven Tests in four years.Part of the fault lies, of course, in the wording of note three in Law 24 (Definition of fair delivery — The arm). When asked to comment in September 1999, Sir Donald Bradman felt it was flawed. To his way of thinking, the law had not moved forward in 38 years — and that was when he and a committee he was on helped reframe the law in 1961.That brings us to some interesting background, which throws suspicion on the lawmakers of 1960 and 1961 —who reviewed what was then Law 26 — and their efforts to modify the law to meet the demands of the day. It followed South African Geoff Griffin’s dodgy action that ruled him ineligible when called for throwing on a number of occasions during the 1960 tour of England.Ian Meckiff, who also had a dodgy action, was due to be selected for the 1961 Australian tour of England and it was felt that Bradman was trying to influence the committee to have them alter the law to suit Meckiff’s action. The lawmakers, led by the copyright holders, the Marylebone Cricket Club, sought to find a way around the Meckiff selection impasse with experimental wording where the term ‘jerk’ was to be removed.Bradman argued how the term ‘jerk’ was archaic as is reflected pre-1865 thinking before overarm bowling was introduced. It led to strong objections to a plan concocted between Australia and the MCC (there was no such controlling body as the England and Wales Cricket Board in those days), to allow a six weeks moratorium on bowlers such as Meckiff during the 1961 Australian tour of England.The plan was abandoned after strong opposition from the England umpires; Meckiff was not selected (illness being cited as the reason) and the tour passed without any throwing rancour.Now we have an ironic twist. Meckiff was no-balled out of the game during the first Test against South Africa at Brisbane in 1963/64 when, in the first over to Trevor Goddard, he was no-balled four times by square leg umpire Colin Egar.So was Meckiff set up? There are suggestions that this was the case. Bradman, it is known, had a long conversation with the left-arm fast bowler after the game and, despite questions asked, both refused to comment about what was said.At the time of the 1960s throwing controversy, the Don was the game’s senior statesman in England and Australia but his view, along with those of the Australian national selectors of that time, is not known.As Chris Broad recently pointed out, many have paid lip service to the system — indeed, coaches and umpires were told to turn a Nelsonian eye to the problem. As such, they created a culture of throwing that has been allowed to permeate the game.
