The following comment is by IMO one of the best captains in the history of the game. But I do not agree with him that it is as simple as leaving it upto the umpires. After the dishonesty of Ross Emerson in 1996 calling Muralitharan's leg spinners, it cannot be left only upto the umpires unless the umpires are also held accountable for no-balling a bowler for throwing. Calling someone for throwing is lot more serious than say messing up a lbw or caught behind decision.
Simplify the 'crooked' law: Chappell
By: Ian Chappell
May 30, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could never say Muttiah Muralitharan has had a love affair with Australia. On two separate occasions he has been no-balled for throwing while touring the country and both times by local umpires. Now the Prime Minister has labelled his action illegal.
Normally, technical comments about the game by a Prime Minister who should have more pressing problems on his mind are about as valid as a cricketer’s theories on GNP.
Until Muralitharan cited the PM’s irrelevant comment as a reason for not touring Australia it’s likely that no one took any notice of John Howard’s outburst.
The only good to come from Muralitharan’s plight has been to highlight the quagmire created by the complicated law on illegal bowling actions.
As if it isn’t confusing enough to have one type of bowler allowed to bend his arm more than another, how can the square-leg umpire be asked to adjudicate on degrees of ‘crookedness’ with the naked eye?
However, before the administrators work on simplifying the law regarding illegal deliveries, they must first decide what they are trying to achieve with the legislation.
If they want a batting exhibition then a law that allows for no bend in the bowler’s arm is in order.
If they come to the (correct) conclusion that this is not in the best interests of the game then the answer is a simple law like; “If in the umpire’s opinion the bowler is not gaining an unfair advantage from his action then the delivery is legal.”
A simple law (without a definition) achieves a number of desired outcomes. It allows the umpires on the field to make a judgement, which is crucial because it’s when a bowler pelts the odd delivery that it creates serious difficulties for the batsmen.
It also allows the bowler a bit of leniency in the bending of his arm, which is important if the bowlers are to remain competitive in their battle with batsmen.
And finally, it keeps the legal eagles out of the process which is imperative because no one wants cricket matches decided like a number of America’s Cup races have been, in the court room.
These outcomes are predicated on the premise that; 1) A throw is easily discernible with the naked eye, 2) A throw has to be blatant to gain a real advantage and 3)
The umpires work out amongst themselves the basis for an action they believe doesn’t give the bowler an unfair advantage. This is where the umpires could utilise video footage but the blanket use of this device to decide whether a bowler’s action is legal or not is fraught with danger.
All bowlers, especially those who used a “****ed-wrist” style, look dubious when the action is in slow motion.
My reaction to Muralitharan’s action hasn’t changed. I concede he may be illegal according to the (stupid) law but I don’t feel he gains any unfair advantage over and above that of any other finger spinner.
If you are critical of Muralitharan for an arm that goes “bent to straight,” then you have to apply the same principle throughout and that means virtually every bowler is in some doubt.
If that’s what the administrators want then fine but please don’t ask me to watch the resulting debacle when Australia amass 1350 runs to draw with India who made 1246.
I also don’t believe it’s right to penalise Muralitharan (or any other player) because he’s physically able to do things others aren’t capable of achieving. Mark Waugh wasn’t penalised because his wrist-work was far superior to the West Indies’ Phil Simmons so why apply the principle to bowlers.
It’s this bias in the laws towards batsmen that often lead bowlers to resort to ball tampering, chucking and bodyline to try and redress the balance.
Originally it was in the interests of an even contest that bowling advanced from under-arm to round arm and finally to over arm.
It should be remembered this process wasn’t aided by the administrators who tried to thwart the bowlers at every turn.
In the end it was only the single-minded determination of some resolute bowlers that brought about the improvements and ensured the modern game is a reasonably even contest.
If the administrators are really serious about cleaning up bowling actions then the problem needs to be sorted out at the lower levels of the game so bowlers with dubious deliveries never even reach first-class level.
In the meantime what the game desperately needs is a simple law on bowling actions and Muralitharan playing in Australia rather than being yet another person John Howard doesn’t want in the country.
Simplify the 'crooked' law: Chappell
By: Ian Chappell
May 30, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could never say Muttiah Muralitharan has had a love affair with Australia. On two separate occasions he has been no-balled for throwing while touring the country and both times by local umpires. Now the Prime Minister has labelled his action illegal.
Normally, technical comments about the game by a Prime Minister who should have more pressing problems on his mind are about as valid as a cricketer’s theories on GNP.
Until Muralitharan cited the PM’s irrelevant comment as a reason for not touring Australia it’s likely that no one took any notice of John Howard’s outburst.
The only good to come from Muralitharan’s plight has been to highlight the quagmire created by the complicated law on illegal bowling actions.
As if it isn’t confusing enough to have one type of bowler allowed to bend his arm more than another, how can the square-leg umpire be asked to adjudicate on degrees of ‘crookedness’ with the naked eye?
However, before the administrators work on simplifying the law regarding illegal deliveries, they must first decide what they are trying to achieve with the legislation.
If they want a batting exhibition then a law that allows for no bend in the bowler’s arm is in order.
If they come to the (correct) conclusion that this is not in the best interests of the game then the answer is a simple law like; “If in the umpire’s opinion the bowler is not gaining an unfair advantage from his action then the delivery is legal.”
A simple law (without a definition) achieves a number of desired outcomes. It allows the umpires on the field to make a judgement, which is crucial because it’s when a bowler pelts the odd delivery that it creates serious difficulties for the batsmen.
It also allows the bowler a bit of leniency in the bending of his arm, which is important if the bowlers are to remain competitive in their battle with batsmen.
And finally, it keeps the legal eagles out of the process which is imperative because no one wants cricket matches decided like a number of America’s Cup races have been, in the court room.
These outcomes are predicated on the premise that; 1) A throw is easily discernible with the naked eye, 2) A throw has to be blatant to gain a real advantage and 3)
The umpires work out amongst themselves the basis for an action they believe doesn’t give the bowler an unfair advantage. This is where the umpires could utilise video footage but the blanket use of this device to decide whether a bowler’s action is legal or not is fraught with danger.
All bowlers, especially those who used a “****ed-wrist” style, look dubious when the action is in slow motion.
My reaction to Muralitharan’s action hasn’t changed. I concede he may be illegal according to the (stupid) law but I don’t feel he gains any unfair advantage over and above that of any other finger spinner.
If you are critical of Muralitharan for an arm that goes “bent to straight,” then you have to apply the same principle throughout and that means virtually every bowler is in some doubt.
If that’s what the administrators want then fine but please don’t ask me to watch the resulting debacle when Australia amass 1350 runs to draw with India who made 1246.
I also don’t believe it’s right to penalise Muralitharan (or any other player) because he’s physically able to do things others aren’t capable of achieving. Mark Waugh wasn’t penalised because his wrist-work was far superior to the West Indies’ Phil Simmons so why apply the principle to bowlers.
It’s this bias in the laws towards batsmen that often lead bowlers to resort to ball tampering, chucking and bodyline to try and redress the balance.
Originally it was in the interests of an even contest that bowling advanced from under-arm to round arm and finally to over arm.
It should be remembered this process wasn’t aided by the administrators who tried to thwart the bowlers at every turn.
In the end it was only the single-minded determination of some resolute bowlers that brought about the improvements and ensured the modern game is a reasonably even contest.
If the administrators are really serious about cleaning up bowling actions then the problem needs to be sorted out at the lower levels of the game so bowlers with dubious deliveries never even reach first-class level.
In the meantime what the game desperately needs is a simple law on bowling actions and Muralitharan playing in Australia rather than being yet another person John Howard doesn’t want in the country.
