THE Sri Lankan Cricket Board has always reacted aggressively to any criticism of the bowling action of their spin king Muttiah Muralitharan (also affectionately known as Murli). Their reaction was no different to the recent utterances of former Indian and West Indian captains, Bishen Singh Bedi and Michael Holding. The former had stated that Murli was a ‘chucker’ and the latter had swiftly endorsed his opinion. Bedi is a friendly person with a cool mind and is least likely to provoke an uncalled for controversy. However, what he said was what he saw. Holding is also a person of sound head and he obviously stated what he saw to be the truth.
The drama started in 1999 when Australian umpire Daryl Hair called Murli for throwing during a match. Outraged, the Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga immediately led his players off the field in protest. He went on to threaten that the match would be altogether called off if his spinner was called again. Furthermore, he demanded the removal of Hair from all future matches in which Sri Lanka would be playing.
This was blackmail at its worst and the cricket governing body succumbed to it. Daryl Hair was scrapped from all future matches featuring Sri Lanka. And as if the retreat on the umpire issue was not enough, ICC came up with a novel way of legitimizing the spinner’s bowling action. They came up with a finding that the bowler had a ‘birth-defect’ in his right arm, which consequently would not straighten up at the time of delivery. Based on this finding the bowler’s action was cleared!
While the remarks of both former bowlers have irked the Sri Lankans, the comments of Holding are of particular concern to them. He is presently the chief of the ICC committee on illegal deliveries and he may review the spinner’s bowling action, which indeed he should. Bedi’s remarks equating Murli’s action with that of a ‘Javelin thrower’ were sarcastic but appropriate.
The law on illegal deliveries states that if the elbow is bent at the time of delivery, it is an illegal delivery. It makes no distinction with respect to any birth defect or indeed any other defect. As the law on the subject is quite clear, Muralitharan is an obvious chucker who should have been banned when he was reported.
In yester years when there were no such regulatory bodies the game used to be played in its true spirit. When in the mid -sixties Bobby Simpson, the then captain of the touring Australians, informed Pakistan’s Majid Khan that his action was suspect and he may not be allowed to bowl in Australia, Majid modified his bowling action. By the same token a leading strike bowler of the Australians, Ian Mecif, was also under suspicion of chucking. He gracefully bowed out of the game.
The recent ICC decision to allow referral to the third umpire of all modes of dismissal is a welcome step. This itself has undoubtedly come about because of appalling LBW decisions given in the recent past. However, it are after all the two umpires in the field who can refer the matter to the third umpire. Television replays have confirmed that in most instances when a batsman feels aggrieved over the umpire’s decision he has been right. Still, in all fairness to the umpire, he has only a fleeting second to decide whether a batsman is out or not.
First he watches the bowler’s run up, to check for a no-ball. Then just as he raises his eyes he has to make a decision. As such the possibility of margin of error increases substantially. Resultantly a sight often seen is that the batsman who gets marching order is in fact often not out. To confound his woes when he feels reluctant to depart he is reported for showing dissent which results in a fine or imposition of ban for a few matches. If he is lucky he gets away with a warning. It is adding insult to injury.
Similarly bowlers also feel aggrieved with the umpire’s decision. When access to modern technology is there it would be absurd not to make full use of it. To ensure fair play and to level the playing field, it is high time that a batsman who feels aggrieved over the umpire’s decision should have access to the third umpire. He should be allowed to call for it or to ask the field umpire to call for it which should be binding on the umpire. Similarly a bowler who feels aggrieved by the umpire’s decision should also have access to the third umpire. However, as a precautionary measure, in order to avoid time wasting tactics a maximum of three appeals per batsman and bowler could be considered. If the overall time spent on such replays exceeds ten minutes then the same may be added on so as to extend the playing time at the end of the day. Since almost all cricket venues now have flood light facilities there should be no problem in extending the playing time. The PCB should take the initiative in this field and if they lead all others would follow. It may be recalled that Pakistan’s Imran Khan was the first captain to have suggested neutral umpires. It was after him, that the rest joined in chorus.
The commission inquiring into the allegations of match fixing has endorsed earlier findings on the grounds that there is no evidence. If the terms of reference were confirmed then there was no point in conducting an exercise in futility. Lie detector tests should have been used to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of a player. This would have been a very credible method which is in vogue in most of the advanced countries. Or alternatively an expert with impeccable integrity (now that is a rare commodity) should have been asked to watch the videotapes and to give his evaluation. Evidence of match fixing is almost impossible to find, unless one makes a gaffe like Hansie Cronje.
THE Sri Lankan Cricket Board has always reacted aggressively to any criticism of the bowling action of their spin king Muttiah Muralitharan (also affectionately known as Murli). Their reaction was no different to the recent utterances of former Indian and West Indian captains, Bishen Singh Bedi and Michael Holding. The former had stated that Murli was a ‘chucker’ and the latter had swiftly endorsed his opinion. Bedi is a friendly person with a cool mind and is least likely to provoke an uncalled for controversy. However, what he said was what he saw. Holding is also a person of sound head and he obviously stated what he saw to be the truth.
