Mohammad Hafeez not to be penalised by PCB over ICC ‘suspect bowling’ outburst

Mohammad Hafeez will not be penalised for his outburst against the International Cricket Council (ICC) over his comments on the way the global cricket governing body handles suspect bowling actions.

According to ESPNCricinfo, Hafeez has clarified to a three-member Pakistan Cricket Board disciplinary committee that his ‘intention was not to criticise ICC protocols’.

“My intention was not to criticise ICC protocols nor did I mention any respected cricket board in my interview. The interview was all about my suggestions to improve the [bowling action test] standards and to remove doubts from the minds of cricket fans. Unfortunately, my comments were misinterpreted and used out of context,” the 37-year-old was quoted.

The committee set up by the PCB included its director of cricket operations Haroon Rasheed, media director Amjad Hussain and general manager Salman Naseer.

Hafeez, fondly called as ‘the Professor’, made his comments in the media after he was cleared to bowl for the third time. but the Pakistan veteran cricketer questioned how the umpires were able to spot small differences in bowling actions.

Speaking to BBC Urdu, Hafeez said that the results of his tests at Loughborough in the UK showed his elbow flexing only a couple of degrees over the acceptable limit of 15.

He had also pointed fingers on ‘power of boards’ for ‘influencing’ certain decisions. “There are so many things influencing [who gets called for suspect actions], it has a lot to do with the power of [some] boards and nobody wants to take them on,” Hafeez said.

“What I say is, why not implement the rule and get every bowler in the world to go through [the testing process]. What’s the difficulty in that? So I have my doubts about this calling system. This is suspicious, why are match referees or on-field umpires not able to see those flexing up to 35, but me with 16 degrees,” Hafeez added.

The Pakistan Cricket Board served a notice to the former captain asking him to explain his comments, saying they were in breach of his code of conduct.