Ashwin’s comments might reignite debate over bowling actions, with Usman Tariq case in focus

Ravi Ashwin’s recent remarks on the absence of a central monitoring mechanism in franchise cricket might once again put the spotlight on how bowling actions are scrutinised outside the ICC’s direct jurisdiction, a debate that could have implications for cases such as that of Usman Tariq.

Speaking candidly about the structural gaps in franchise leagues, Ashwin highlighted that when players compete in tournaments like the IPL or leagues held in Dubai and elsewhere, oversight is entirely league-driven rather than governed by the ICC. He noted that this lack of a unified system might be undermining consistency and credibility in how bowling actions are assessed.

“If the ICC is the global governing body of cricket, it is unfortunate that it does not have oversight,” Ashwin said, adding that even in the IPL, a formal monitoring framework does not truly exist. According to him, discussions around suspect actions often remain internal, involving players and team management, but rarely translate into a robust reporting or review process.

This observation might resonate strongly in light of recent franchise-level controversies, including Usman Tariq’s case, which has sparked debate among fans and former players alike. While bowlers can be reported by on-field umpires, Ashwin pointed out that beyond such reports, very little action tends to follow, a system that could allow players to resume bowling almost immediately after being flagged.

“There have been cases where bowlers were reported and returned to playing almost straightaway. That, to me, is quite puzzling,” Ashwin remarked, questioning whether the current framework truly safeguards the integrity of the game.

Ashwin’s comments might be interpreted as a call for reform, suggesting that without ICC-level oversight, franchise leagues risk operating in silos. For bowlers like Usman Tariq, this grey area could mean inconsistent outcomes, swift clearance in one league, scrutiny in another further fuelling confusion rather than clarity.