westoelad wrote:There are clear rules and procedures in place for those with bowling actions which are considered suspect and it's the sole responsibity of the ruling authority to impose and monitor these actions. It is not in the remit of an individual club to rule on the legality of a bowler's action. For the club unitarily to prevent a bowler playing or bowling could constitute a restraint of trade and leave the club open to legal action.
Yorkshire, therefore, didn't do anything illegal-on the contrary they'd have been acting illegally if they'd have prevented him from bowling. Ever since I watched James Kirtley being interviewed after his successful comeback in that Lord's final I've always had sympathy for bowlers who are subject to such scrutiny. His relief was palpable and it was clear that he'd undergone a terrible ordeal.
That is why I believe these issues should be dealt with objectively and solely by the relevant authority -hence my initial response to a comment which I considered flippant.
Incredibly bizarre point being made here.
Restraint of Trade concerns the limitations or restrictions placed on a employee by the terms in their employment or service contract. Its completely irrelevant unless a player has a "must bowl every over" clause in their contract, which I can categorically state, has never happened.
You do realise that, by their very nature, sporting teams have a large squad to cover from injury, form, etc. You seem to be suggesting that 14 people in a squad of 25 can sue their club every week for restraint of trade, after all, surely picking someone else is stopping them from carrying out their trade? Do new ball bowlers being replaced by first change bowlers leave the field to speak to their lawyers? After all, they arent bowling anymore?
Actually not. If a player is not playing, they are STILL PAID THEIR CONTRACT WAGE AND THEREFORE ARE NOT BEING STOPPED IN MAKING MONEY FROM THERE TRADE.
That's aside from the laudable concept of "being innocent until proven guilty".
The concept comes with a key qualifier, the "until" part. Once proven guilty, his actions are no longer innocent, and are therefore punishable.
Another concept for you - "ignorance of the law or guilty action is no defence".
Yorkshire chose to bowl him and benefited as such from that action, therefore they cannot themselves claim innocence through ignorance.