Quick action fine: coach

A LEADING Geelong cricket coach says he is not convinced East Belmont paceman Alex Willerton has a suspect action as investigations continue.

Scott Lindsay, a respected bowling coach and first-year mentor at Leopold, said Willerton did not raise any alarm bells in his 11-over spell for East Belmont on Saturday.

“From the naked eye, it’s very hard to judge anything,” Lindsay said.

“You can’t tell from side on. When you get behind the bowler’s arm, it could be a little bit (suspect) but as you well know, it’s 15 degrees.

“When the video came out and everyone was carrying on . . . it did look a little bit suss. But when you watch him live, his action seems fine to me.

“I feel a little bit sorry for him, actually. I expected it to be a little bit worse.

“I watched every one of his deliveries closely and from behind the bowler’s arm, it looked OK. I can’t say categorically that he throws it . . . no way known. Watching it live is definitely different to watching it on the video.”

Willerton, in his maiden season in the GCA after cross- ing from English county club Lincolnshire, was the subject of a “chucking” furore when footage of the 20-year-old bowling at rapid speed hit the GCA’s Facebook page, drawing criticism from players who claimed he delivered the ball with an illegal action.

The Lions leapt to his defence, pointing out that Willerton had never been no-balled in his career, nor reported by players, coaches or officials for having an illegal action.

He bowled under the watchful eye of experienced GCA umpires Dean Wilson and Trevor Anderson on Saturday, with neither issuing a warning or taking the courageous step of no-balling him.

But Willerton is not in the clear, yet.

At the completion of the two-day clash next week, umpires Wilson and Anderson can make a report on Willerton’s action to the GCA, if they deem it is suspect.

Any mention will trigger a long and drawn-out process to determine if Willerton bowls within the rules.

After three written mentions, a bowler with an alleged suspect action is ordered to undertake remediation.

A fourth mention triggers another eight-week lay-off, while a fifth report draws a 12month suspension.

The drastic measures come as a result of the controversial call by former Test umpire Darrell Hair to no-ball Sri Lankan spinner Muttiah Muralitharan in the Boxing Day Test in 1995.

The rules were later amended, placing strict guidelines on umpires when determining an illegal action.

“It’s almost impossible to call a bowler for chucking,” said a local umpire, who wished to remain anonymous.

“Unless you are absolutely certain he is throwing it, you can’t no-ball him. We have to make a report and the association will deal with it.”

Law 24.3 states: “A ball is fairly delivered in respect to the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand.

“This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.”

Lindsay urged the GCA to speed up the process.

“It’s only fair for him that they video him and get to the bottom of it,” Lindsay said.