Baroda seek clarity on chucking
The first round of Ranji matches are complete and there’s a buzz about winners and losers, how different pitches are playing, which old warhorse continues to deliver and which Young Turk has made a name for himself, reports Anand Vasu.india Updated: Nov 07, 2009 22:53 IST
The first round of Ranji matches are complete and there’s a buzz about winners and losers, how different pitches are playing, which old warhorse continues to deliver and which Young Turk has made a name for himself.
But this season has got off to a slightly unsavoury start. Under the new system put in place by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), umpires have been asked to call a no-ball when they feel a bowler has “chucked” a certain delivery. Already there have been many instances of this happening, with Delhi’s Yogesh Nagar being called, Railways offie Kulamani Parida warned that he was under intense scrutiny and others being in the crossfire. But the worst hit are Baroda.
Salim Veragi, the young medium-pacer, and veteran left-arm spinner Rajesh Pawar were both no-balled, leading the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) to write to the BCCI seeking clarity.
Snehal Parikh, Joint-Secretary of the BCA, has raised several points in a letter to BCCI secretary N. Srinivasan. The first question is why the Action Document (on illegal actions) was circulated to associations and umpires only on Nov 3, rather than well before the season start.
Baroda’s reasoning is that they might have been able to prepare bowlers with a suspect action better had they known well in advance, or perhaps not pick them at all. This point is bound to raise some eyebrows as certain officials and associations did receive a list in advance, the Action Document that came later just clarified the severity of suspicion on certain players.
Add to this the fact that the match referee spoke to the captains and coaches ahead of the Delhi-Baroda match, making them aware of the bowlers who were under the scanner. The teams took the chance of playing the bowlers (unlike Gujarat, who left out both Mohnish Parmar and Amit Singh) and paid the price.
Baroda has further questioned the logic behind not calling Pawar on the first day, when he bowled 20 overs, and then calling him in his first over on the second day, Nov 4, soon after the document was circulated.
However, an official clarified to HT that there was nothing sinister about this, just that the standing umpires who were watching Pawar closely on Day 1, confirmed their suspicions at the end of the day’s play after reviewing footage.
Finally, Baroda has asked the BCCI for the tapes of the offending deliveries for a closer look.