As a journalist who has spent years analyzing cricket's laws and their evolution through data, I hear this question more often than you might think. On the surface, it seems simple: if a bowler declares an underarm delivery, what's the harm? The answer, however, is rooted in a complex mix of historical evolution, a single infamous match, and a fundamental principle written into the game's spirit. The short answer is that the Laws of Cricket, specifically Law 21.1, explicitly prohibit the delivery of the ball underarm in any form of cricket. Declaring your intent to break a law does not make the action legal.
The reader's question hinges on a common misconception—that declaring an unconventional tactic renders it acceptable. In cricket, you can declare an innings closed, but you cannot declare an illegal delivery as legal. The bowling action is governed by strict laws, not by a bowler's pre-delivery announcements. This isn't a matter of gamesmanship; it's a breach of the game's codified rules. The confusion often stems from knowing that underarm was the original form of bowling, so its prohibition feels arbitrary. To understand why, we need to look at how the game's physical dynamics and ethical standards changed.
For the first century of cricket's organized history, underarm bowling was the only method. As historical records show, it was essentially an extension of the sport of bowls, with the ball rolled or skimmed along the ground. The primary skill was accuracy and subtle variation in pace, not the aerial dynamics we associate with the game today. The shift began in the early 19th century with the introduction of roundarm, and later overarm, bowling. These styles were initially controversial and often called as "no-balls" for being unfair, but they persisted because they introduced a new, challenging dimension to the contest between bat and ball. The ball could now be made to bounce and deviate in the air, demanding greater skill from both bowler and batter.
This evolution was formalized in the laws. The current stipulation that the ball must be delivered with the arm above the shoulder didn't just appear; it was the endpoint of a long standardization process that phased out roundarm and finally settled on overarm as the sole legal method. The law exists to define the framework of the contest. Allowing a reversion to underarm, even if declared, would fundamentally alter the agreed-upon parameters of that contest in a way the laws explicitly forbid. It would be akin to a fielder declaring they're going to use a baseball glove—the intent is clear, but the equipment is illegal.
While the law had long been established, the modern absolute prohibition was cemented by a single event on February 1, 1981, during a One-Day International between Australia and New Zealand. With New Zealand needing six runs to tie off the final ball, Australian captain Greg Chappell instructed his brother, Trevor, to bowl the final delivery underarm along the ground. This made it mechanically impossible for the batter, Brian McKechnie, to hit a six. The act was technically within a loophole in the playing conditions of the time, but it was universally condemned as against the spirit of cricket. The fallout was immediate and severe. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser called it "contrary to the traditions of the game," and New Zealand PM Robert Muldoon labeled it "an act of cowardice."
The incident's legacy is a key piece of evidence. It demonstrated that even if not explicitly illegal by a specific match's fine print, an underarm delivery in the modern context was viewed as so against the sport's ethos that it demanded a universal, unbreakable rule. In response, the International Cricket Council (ICC) moved swiftly to close any loophole, making underarm deliveries illegal in all circumstances. This is a clear case where quantitative data—like win probability metrics—would have shown the tactic was effectively a 100% game-ender in that specific scenario, but the qualitative judgment on its fairness overruled any statistical justification.
The solution to the ambiguity exploited in 1981 is the current Law 21.1. It leaves no room for interpretation: "The ball must be bowled. If it is thrown or delivered underarm, either umpire shall call and signal No ball." The law does not provide an exemption for a bowler declaring their action. Furthermore, Law 41.7 specifically addresses "Bowling of dangerous and unfair non-pitching deliveries," which, while focused on beamers, underscores the MCC's authority to define and penalize unfair bowling actions. The governance is absolute.
This aligns with how cricket handles other illegal actions. A bowler cannot declare they are about to throw the ball (chuck) or overstep the front foot by a meter. The declaration is irrelevant. Umpires are empowered to judge the action based on the law. For analysts, this creates a clean, binary data point: a delivery is either legal (overarm) or it is a no-ball. Platforms like the cricket federation statistics platform categorize every delivery by type—seam, spin, slower ball—but all share the foundational parameter of being delivered within the legal bowling mandate.
The key takeaway for players, fans, and analysts is that cricket's laws serve two masters: the technical framework for play and the preservation of the sport's spirit. The underarm law is a prime example of both. Technically, it standardizes the contest. Spiritually, it prevents a regression to a tactic deemed uncompetitive and against the game's modern character. If you're analyzing a match, the question of an underarm delivery is a non-starter; it's an illegal event that will not appear in any legitimate data set. The energy is better spent understanding the nuances of *legal* deliveries—the seam position of a 90mph delivery, the release point of a doosra—which are the true variables in the complex equation of a cricket match.
From what practitioners in sports law and analytics report, the 1981 incident is the definitive case study. It transformed an anachronistic style into a symbol of bad faith, leading to a watertight law. The data point of "1" – that single incident – was enough to change the game's permanent regulations, a testament to how powerfully cricket's community guards its core principles.
References & Further Reading: