These things should be sorted out before a player gets to Test level. As Mike Atherton said in the first Test at Lord's and one cannot judge in a single Test, it should take at least three Tests to judge it correctly.
Vishal lilani, England

His action is no different to that of Glenn McGrath's. His only crime is that he is from the wrong side of the continent. Wake up cricket, and stop picking on the sub-continent players!
Jesse, UK

Ruchira definitely chucks the ball, especially when he tries harder. Some of his faster deliveries are chucks.
Rimet Hynniewta, India

One can only feel sorry for the young lad at not being taught to bowl legally. But laws should not be flouted to accomodate the "chuckers". All this nonsense about certain bowlers having elbows which hyperflex or hyperextend and others having congenital birth defects should not entitle them to chuck.

If they do, they should be no-balled. Anyone can chuck a ball, very few can become exceptional bowlers using a straight arm. If the umpires had done their job properly Murali would have an extra 412 no-balls in his statistics column rather than 412 wickets. Ditto for the "Rawalpindi Express chucker."
Galahad Wang, England

Anybody who does not have a straight arm that is above 60 degrees from horizontal must be considered a thrower, just as many of the left arm spinners are today.
John Carpenter, England

Ruchira Perera is the second fastest bowler in Sri Lanka and he has played in Australia and South Africa. Nobody thought he was chucking. Now, when he comes to England, gets a few wickets and gets the English batsmen into trouble he's called for chucking. Both these umpires have stood before when he's bowled. Why wasn't he called then? Why now?
Marco Fitch, Sri Lanka

It is ironic that every time we go overseas a player has to get probed for "chucking". When did an Australian, a Kiwi or an Englishman ever get "called"? I do not think Ruchira Perera chucks and he should be allowed to play until proven.
Sugath, Sri Lanka

Perera probably does throw the ball, but we have to ask ourselves does it really matter. He's certainly not deliberately cheating, so rather than risk ruining a career, just leave it be. How much difference does it make? So England couldn't put out a bowler who could take three wickets in an innings and Sri Lanka could. GET OVER IT!
Ian Green, England

Perera's action looks bad on television but after watching him live on Monday I can honestly say it is the worst I've ever seen. How can a player get as far as this in world cricket before anything is done?
Theo Minter, Hove, England

I think it's fair to say that far less attention would have been paid to Perera had England not been under the cosh for much of this game, however the simple fact remains - his action is contrary to the laws of the game and regardless of whom he plays for, he is cheating in the same way that athletes who take steroids are cheating. Sri Lanka may turn out to be better than England this summer, but let's start on a level playing-field.

Trial by media is almost inevitable and an acceptable part of the game if it is used consistently and with all parties' consent. If it can be used to judge marginal run-outs then it can be used to pick up suspect actions.
Kerlmann, UK

Looking at the photos on this site, the case is not as clear as most readers suggest. Perera's arm is indeed cooked through the delivery, but this is not classified as a "chuck" and is perfectly legal. The final picture shows his arm straightened however in this picture the ball has already left his hand, again perfectly legal. All that can be said is that Perera has the ability to straighten his arm and that the photographic evidence is inconclusive.
Julian, UK

So Sri Lanka produce another chucker - is that surprising? Perera has all the ingredients to be a great bowler - he does not need to chuck. His coaches have to sort out his action. After all, they are the ones who taught him to bowl like that in the first place.

It's a shame the fourth umpire can't have a more active role in this. The normal umpires have enough on their plates. It's not like you can warn the guy against chucking because that's the action he has been trained to do and he'll be splattered across the ground.

But not being able to use a bowler would be a huge blow, one the team normally would not be able to carry. Perhaps then the coaches will stop this chucking culture and get back to the fine art of bowling.
Eddie, Switzerland

Anyone who has seen the slo-mo footage of Perera's action in this game will see he is obviously throwing the ball. The question is whether or not this is to his advantage. I think it is because he generates so much pace and skiddy bounce that it's hard to see where else that comes from in his action.
Simon Starr, England

This is totally different from the issues surrounding Shoaib Akhtar, as Perera seems to straighten his arm during delivery rather than have hyperextension of the elbow. There are, however, plenty of other fast bowlers who are also short in stature.
Nathalie Compton, England

Unfortunately it is clear from slow motion replays that Perera straightens his arm during delivery and I think it is correct that he has been reported. However, I must disagree with some other comments re. Muralitharan. Murali's does not straighten his arm; it is bent throughout his action and is therefore within the rules.
John, Scotland

I'm sorry but where Shoaib Akhtar and James Kirtley have strange looking actions as a result of hyper extension, this man clearly needs to work on keeping his arm straight throughout. What is it with Sri Lanka producing suspect bowlers? I've always thought Murali the world's greatest chucker!!
Dave M, England

Having looked at him bowling yesterday, I am sure that he is throwing the ball. It is more obvious when he puts down a quicker one. His arm straightens out quite obviously, in my opinion. Why on Earth don't the umpires no ball him? The result of waiting until the game is over could mean that Sri Lanka won at England's expense by virtue of an illegal bowling action.
Michael Ames, UK

I don't think there's a hidden agenda. If Perera chucks, he chucks. The first ball I saw him bowl looked suspect and my opinion of his action hasn't changed - my view of his first delivery certainly wasn't based on his eventual success in the Test.

The idea that this furore wouldn't have arisen had Perera not taken any wickets does not seem to me to reflect what cricket watchers around the country would have thought on seeing his first over. His action looks suspect and should therefore be scrutinised for validity, as have the actions of (for example) Kirtley and Giddins of England in recent years.

If the investigation says he doesn't chuck, then great. We would be free to watch an enthusiastic and moderately good fast medium bowler without questions being asked about the way he plays. If he throws, he has some work still to do to legitimately earn his place in the Test arena.
Paul, UK

Overjoyed to read George's comments on the matter. I also watched the accused bowl from the Grandstand on Saturday and two things struck me. The first was that his action appeared to defy physiognomics or that he was throwing the ball, and the second thing was that his action was inconsistent.

It was clear that a faster or shorter delivery was the result of a greater amount of bending and straightening of the arm. Whilst this may or may not be entirely intentional - putting in an extra bit of effort will often produce a slight variation in techninque - the action must be corrected to fall in line with the rules. No need to make a song and dance about it, just get the man sorted out.
Charles, UK

It's a pity that Sri Lanka fans accuse England fans and players of having hidden agendas, covert racism, etc. just because one of their bowlers has a dodgy action. The England team, to their credit, refused to criticise Perera.

The umpires waited until the game was over and have now reported Perera for his suspect bowling action. Why do so many fans on the subcontinent have a chip on their shoulder?
Stuart, England

Cricket is breeding a whole host of chuckers through its ineffectual approach. If Murali and Shoaib are not chuckers according to the rules, then we should change the rules, because they are getting unfair advantages.

But remember just because you chuck doesn't mean that every ball is a chuck, and umpires must have the final decision.
Andy Brown, UK

Being a Brit of Sri Lankan origin, I have to say Perera's action and Murali's are world's apart. Perera is clearly a chucker - anyone can see his arm is bent as it goes round and straightens on delivery. Murali, however, has an arm that is bent at all times. ICC rules do not disallow bent arms, so long as they are not straightened when delivering.

A frame by frame analysis of Murali shows he never straightens his arm. This is indeed due to a physical defect. Perera, however, should never have got to the Test arena without having his action changed.
Asitha Rodrigo, England

It's amazing that pointing out the obvious fact that Perera is throwing the ball can now be interpreted as a racist act, a slur on the sub-continent, and a dirty trick designed to help England save the Test match!
Whitsa, UK

The rules are very clear - the arm must be straight when bowling or it may be called a 'no-ball' at the umpire's discretion. No matter how slight or obvious the infringement, a rule is a rule and every player has to follow the same laws.

If it is his natural action it is unfortunate but he must look at changing it. The more the rules are bent the longer this debate will continue. All doubt needs to be stamped out sooner rather than later and then we can all get on with watching two great teams in some very enthralling action.
Alex, UK

I sat in the grandstand at Lord's on Saturday when Perera came on to bowl and was almost exactly side on to the wicket. After only two balls my two friends and I all agreed that was certainly something suspect about his action.

As for one rule for the sub-continent and another for the rest of the world; this is total nonsense as demonstrated by the Kirtley case where a Pakistani (Colonel Ali) referee briefed the media prior to reporting Kirtley to the ICC.

This was why the England management was so furious. In the end, they did not select Kirtley for the one day series either in India or NZ, despite his good performances in Zimbabwe, and instead sent him off to work with Bob Cottam.
George, UK

Of course Perera chucks. As a club cricketer, I know that if I were umpiring a match at square leg, I would be no-balling him on most of his deliveries. Keeping him in the game without remedial action taints the sport. Chucking is cheating.
Mark Clifford, UK

I agree with Rob's comments above. Further, is it overly cynical to suggest that there would be far fewer outcries from the English press had Sri Lanka not dominated the first three days? With England's attack impotent on a flat pitch, the implied suggestion that a Sri Lankan bowler only took wickets due to an illegal action leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
Euan, Scotland

The fact that he throws the ball is undeniable however the question that must be asked is, how did he get to the Test match arena before it was spotted? The match referee must report him to the ICC now.
Matt, England

I saw his bowling action and thought it looked a bit dubious. Akhtar's action came under close scrutiny and it was discovered that his action looks strange due to a "double jointed" elbow. I can't see any evidence of this with Perera's action. He needs to have his action closely examined so there can be no question of legality of his deliveries.
Chris McIvor, UK

Who's kidding who here? Perera's bowling looks pretty ordinary most of the time and his action is suspect when he puts in an effort ball. This is the one most likely to get batsmen out, and so must be legal beyond doubt; otherwise the rules are being broken.

From all angles his effort ball is a throw and this cannot be allowed to pass free of comment. Perera seems quite an aggressive style of bowler and this is no bad thing, unless he is bending the rules to gain advantage, which he undoubtedly is. Good on modern technology for spotting this and it'd be interesting to know how much work has gone into Perera's action to remodel it into its current, flawed state.
Bryan, UK

I agree entirely with Mike Shaw. What I also find amazing was that there was no reaction from the commentators on Channel 4 about Perera's action from the outset. I was watching his first over of the England innings and his first ball was thrown, and so was his second. I then called my wife into the room to watch in case I was not seeing things correctly, and she agreed he was throwing.

He should have been no-balled in first over of this Test and taken off. He must not be allowed to bowl again until his action is corrected. How on earth was he allowed to reach this level if he has always bowled this way?
John Buck, UK

I agree with Gethyn Thomas, there is an agenda going on here against sub-continental cricketers, especially when they have the nerve to beat "our boys who taught the game to the world".

Dermot Reeve, a very average cricketer in his time, would be better advised to commentate on the spineless and gutless performance of our batsmen and bowlers than slinging mud at a very good side.
Nick Toye, UK

In all honesty Perera's action does look dodgy and it is far more obvious than Shoaib Akhter's action. I can't believe this guy has played six Tests without anyone saying anything before now! I also can't believe that Akhter was given such a hard time whereas Brett Lee got off scott-free! Definitely an agenda against the poorer cricketing nations.
Karl Raymond, UK

I have to say I feel very sorry for the player. I think his action is suspect but this situation should not have arisen. Because of the situation regarding Murali, Sri Lanka seem to have decided that any question regarding their bowlers is a vendetta again them.

In reality, the fault lies with Whatmore and his staff - they should have picked up on this a long time ago and rectified the problem. As it stands now, poor old Perera is having to go through a trial by media and a very public humiliation, which he doesn't deserve. He's been let down by his own coaches and cricket board. Hopefully he'll get the problem sorted and go on to become a fine bowler.
Rob, England

It just seems so obvious to me! To say his action is suspect is quite some understatement.
Paul Woodland, UK

It is a part of common culture that when an Asian bowler gets some unexpected success with a slight different action he gets picked on by media and even some umpires, sad to say such attitude is bad for the spirit of cricket.
Ali Nizamani, Malaysia / Pakistan

I guess it is natural that the Sri Lankan coach and team manager should attempt to defend Perera. But the attitude they appear to have adopted is counterproductive, and a threat to the integrity of the Sri Lankan cricket team. Far better for them to admit to a problem (for it is perfectly clear there is one), and take quick action to resolve it.
S Jayawardena, Sri Lanka

The TV evidence is conclusive and the fact that Perera was allowed to bowl in the second innings a disgrace. Already the Sri Lankan coaching staff seem to be saying there is no problem - a line that is only to be expected.

Let us hope that this time the ICC has the courage to act on evidence which is obvious to the eye. The consequences of letting this action go are frightening - bent-arm pace bowlers could cause frequent injury, besides making the game virtually impossible for batsmen.
Tony Pope, UK

Unfortunately, Perera does throw the occasional ball, especially when he tries to bowl a faster ball. The ball which got Vaughan's wicket was not suspect - it was illegal. He definitely throws, but not every ball.
Peter, England

It is for the match umpires to call him if they believe there is something not quite right with his action. No one wants to see a promising player go through the hoop but his action as seen on the TV is suspect and should therefore be reported by those who have the power to do so, he is not the first and will certainly not be the last to be called for having a suspect action.
John, UK

I'm sorry, but there is no argument about it. The TV replays - from every angle - offer conclusive proof that his arm is bent and straightens on delivery of the ball. That is chucking. Dermot Reeve's courage in pointing it out on the UK's Channel 4 coverage puts the other mealy-mouthed commentators to shame.
B Dowell, UK

Chucking or bowling it is not the media's job to analyse a bowler's every flaw or irregularity. Their job is to report the match as it is. I do agree that there is a slight 'flaw' in his action, especially when bowling a bouncer.

But as long as the umpires or the ICC have no problem with his action the media too should keep focused on their job. Rather ironic the fact that it is mainly the English media who seem to find fault. Coincidence?
Darshana, UAE

How can a bowler get to Test level with such an action and not be helped by coaches?

Surely the Sri Lankan authorities knew that Perera's action would be scrutinised and therefore they should have done something earlier to either have it altered or proved that it is legal.
Stuart Marriott, England

I agree with Rob (below) on the no trial by media point. However, it does look a suspect action, and perhaps the umpires are simply turning a blind eye given the problems which surrounded Murali and Akhtar i.e. to what extent the umpires were accused of bias.

Perera looks to have the right character and ability for a fast bowler and, as such, I hope that for his (and Sri Lanka's) sake that he and the Sri Lankan officials are honest enough to admit there is a problem that needs dealing with. If his action could be rectified, he's got a great future.
G, UK

Anyone can see he's 'chucking' it. His elbow clearly straightens at the point of delivery. If television is going to be used for dismissals then it should also be used to check a bowler is delivering the ball fairly. Perera's action ought to have been corrected long before he arrived on the Test scene. However I daresay it will take the authorities several long years to sort all this out.
Martin Duckworth, England

Perera's action is certainly unusual. He almost certainly throws his bouncer. But why has he been able to get so far without his action being picked up? He is a far more obvious candidate than James Kirtley, who I thought had a perfectly good action. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong things.
Chris Starr, England

Hmmm... trial by media again! I just think back to the James Kirtley situation where his suspect action raised a few eye-brows. If I remember correctly, the England management decided there was no case to answer and continued to ply Kirtley.

Shoaib Akhtar was hounded by the media for his action whilst Brett Lee was left unscathed. I think we have one rule for the subcontinent players and one (more favourable one) for the rest.
Gethyn Thomas, Wales

From the first ball I saw I thought that the action was not correct. From the side view you can clearly see his arm straighten during the delivery of the ball. It is so obvious and in contravention of the laws of the game.

From another point of view the whole thing looks wrong i.e. a man of that build, run up, gather and arm does not look capable of bowling at that speed. It defies belief that the square leg umpire has not had the courage to call the bowler - Mr Hare would have done so by now. I am afraid that gutless umpiring does nothing to help the situation.

Next Test there will another chucker playing - the "great" Murali and no-one will call him either so as to prevent and international incident. This guy claims to have a physical difference that means what he does is just natural - well I don't care... again here is no question that his arm straightens during delivery and that is not a fair delivery. It is no wonder Sri Lanka have won nine tests on the trot. I reckon I could bowl a bit sharper if I was allowed to get away with this kind of cheating.
Malcolm Robson, England

As soon as I saw it on telly, before having read or heard any of the discussions I thought that it looked a bit odd. Having later seen it on slow motion replay I was convinced.

He does look like a good fiery fast bowler, and I hope that for his sake that Sri Lanka do accept there is a real problem and do something to rectify the action now, otherwise it will shadow him for the rest of his career. I am just surprised that somebody could get to Test standard with such an obvious flaw.
Mike Shaw, UK

There is definitely a slight irregularity in the elbow department of Perera's bowling action but he should not have to face a trial by media. The umpires and match referee are there to ensure that the rules of the game are adhered to.
Rob, UK